Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Marden (Cross-Channel Link)

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 567 inhabitants of the village of Marden, which is in my constituency.
British Rail is proposing to build a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel across Kent, and three of the proposed routes cross in or near my constituency. The village of Marden is immediately affected by route 3. Route 3 crosses virgin countryside where there has hitherto been no railway, whereas the other routes do not.
And the prayer of the petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge British Rail to respect the wishes of those living in the affected area of Kent that no new railway line shall be built across the Weald.

To lie upon the Table.

School Boards (Scotland) Bill and Housing Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) The proceedings on further consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), as applied by paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings), shall apply to the proceedings on each of the Bills.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either of the Bills shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the proceedings on either of the Bills are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) a period equal to the duration of the business taken under that paragraph shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on each of the Bills are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) If the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings on either of the Bills are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments to the Bill in question as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment to that Bill and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment to that Bill;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments to that Bill designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments to that Bill;



(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments to the Bill in question Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question that all other Amendments to that Bill moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment be made.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Interpretation

6. In this Order 'the Bills' means the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill.

During the debate on the motion to allocate time for the Local Government Finance Bill on 22 February the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is always the doyen of these occasions, urged me to take no more timetable motions before 20 July—the anniversary of his memorable day of timetable debates. He believed that guillotines could best be defended if they came near the end of a Session, to prevent Bills from being lost. I hope that the fact that this motion is moved almost four months after that date and just two days before the end of the Session will secure the right hon. Gentleman's approval.

The purpose of the motion is fundamental to the operation of this place. One of the principles underlying our work is that finally, however hotly contested any piece of legislation may be, the elected Government are entitled to get their business. But the use of a timetable motion to ensure that needs to be balanced against another basic requirement: that the Opposition have certain rights, among them sufficient opportunity to develop their case against the Government's proposals. In the case of each of these two Bills there can be no doubt that the Opposition have had their opportunity, and that the House has rejected their arguments.

The School Boards (Scotland) Bill received a Second Reading by a substantial majority on 12 April after a full day's debate. It was then considered in Committee for 14 sittings, and was discussed on the Floor of the House for a further full day on Report and Third Reading. The amount of time provided for it was agreed by all parties in the House.

The time available for consideration of the Housing Bill was, as the House will recall, more controversial. On the third day of Report stage, on 14 June, the Opposition undertook that if the House debated the Bill throughout that night the Bill would be completed on the 15th. That undertaking was not fulfilled. With negotiation and good will we were nevertheless able to agree that a further day should be available for remaining stages, making four parliamentary but five calendar days in all. Despite what the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Miss Primarolo) said on Wednesday, we did not seek to timetable the Bill but proceeded by agreement—ultimately—as to the amount of time needed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), thanked me for the time we had provided. Before the Bill left this place it had already received more than 175 hours of debate; it received a further 64 hours' consideration in another place.

Furthermore, neither Bill has had a disrupted passage through the other place. Of the 21 amendments made there to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, four are technical, two are minor drafting amendments, 14 are concessions to points made by Opposition Peers and the remaining one is uncontroversial. While there are significantly more amendments to the Housing Bill—some 270—the vast majority are technical and drafting matters, with perhaps only about 30 dealing with matters of substance.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this point because it will help to clear up a matter of fact to which I may wish to allude if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Is it not a fact that, if the Leader of the House had so wished, we could have debated on Wednesday those 270 or 30 substantive changes for another nine hours, that he could have reported progress at about lunchtime, that no disruption to any other business would have occurred and that this morning we could have been discussing the problem of homelessness? Is that not a parliamentary and factual account of what could have happened?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If we had continued at the rate of progress that we had made up to the point when we adjourned, we should have lost both Thursday's and Friday's business and still would not have got the Bill. I shall make that clear in a minute.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House argues that the Government have only so much


time within which to pass their legislation and that therefore they have to introduce a guillotine, even though they have a majority over the Labour party of about 150. If the Government are short of parliamentary time, why did they allow the introduction of private Bills such as the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill to which they allocated countless hours, with the Prime Minister trotting through the Lobby, and why did they organise two-line Whips? They could have used some of that time to discuss this Bill, but rather than do so they gave way to South African coal imports.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question of which private Bills are brought before the House is a matter not for me but for the Chairman of Ways and Means. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I am complaining not about the shortage of parliamentary time but about the way in which the adequate amount of parliamentary time has been used by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for referring to what is left to debate—30 groups containing matters of substance across the whole range of questions that are dealt with in the Housing Bill. Does he concede that in no circumstances is it ideal that those matters, some of which were introduced for the first time in the other place, should be debated at the end of the parliamentary year, particularly since the Secretary of State for the Environment has introduced a completely new Bill that has taken up the time of the House, during which we could have dealt with this Bill, many of whose subjects remain undebated in this place?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course it is not ideal to have a timetable motion, but a substantial amount of time has already been devoted to the Bill. Some of that time has not been used effectively, and something must be done about it. All Governments and Parliaments get into this classic situation at some stage and decisions have to be made. I am putting forward proposals to resolve the mater which will be best for all concerned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very kind. This side of the House takes the view that the introduction of timetable motions is a great kindness to the Opposition, given the devastating by-election result last night in Govan and their need to look after and foster their constituencies.

Mr. Wakeham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I wondered how long the debate would continue before Govan was mentioned. A period of silent contemplation is more appropriate in certain quarters than discussion of that matter.
I was dealing with the question of the—[Interruption.] May I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to the House. I was dealing with the question of the amendments to the Housing Bill, of which 30 deal with matters of substance. Of these, well over half are items which the Opposition have welcomed, are likely to welcome, or have tabled themselves. All the Government amendments to this Bill in the Lords were agreed to without a Division. Thus there is no reason to think that it would not be possible to agree the amount of

time for this House to consider the amendments. When I announced last week that they would be taken on 9 November, together with amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, there was not a word of complaint or concern from the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches.
Yet it is clear that by Wednesday night the arrangement between the Government and the official Opposition was not generally acceptable to the House. In eight hours of discussion, only nine of the 53 groups of amendments had been considered. If we had maintained the same rate of progress, we should have required about another 40 hours to complete consideration of the Bill. Had we continued to sit, that would have meant losing yesterday's and today's business.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Will he give way?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Graham Allen: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: I gave way to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on a question of fact. If he wishes to make a speech, that is not a matter for me, but if he does I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: It seemed to me that the best way to proceed in an orderly fashion was to adjourn our consideration and bring forward this motion today. [Interruption.] I do not believe that facts are a matter for debate, as they seem to be with the Opposition. Facts are stated and then one can debate their consequences.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will, as usual, put forward his authoritative interpretation of events, as he does on most matters.
The terms of the motion itself are intended to enable the House to make the use it thinks best of the six hours available. The motion is capable of being debated for three hours, and if the debate runs its full course a maximum of one hour would be left for consideration of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, and a further two hours for the Housing Bill. If, however, the House spent less time discussing this motion and took the School Boards (Scotland) Bill formally, then that additional time within the total of six hours would become available for consideration of the Housing Bill where, I recognise, there is a large number of amendments outstanding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This has been done so that if the Opposition are as keen as they say they are to debate the issues relevant to the Housing Bill, they can choose to take up the extra time to do so.
At this stage of the Session, one's thoughts inevitably turn to Prorogation. This has been arranged for Tuesday 15 November and I believe it would be a major inconvenience to the House if that were altered. This being so, in order to secure our business, we need to be certain that our consideration of these Bills can be concluded today, not least because the Housing Bill is to return to another place.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not a fact that this is the first time for more years than anybody can


remember that a Government have got a major Bill into such an appalling mess that they have been unable to bring it back to this House until the day before the Session ends and that it would have fallen otherwise?

Mr. Wakeham: I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's judgment. Whether this is a precedent seems to me not to matter. Every precedent happens for the first time. [Interruption.] That is absolutely right. If the hon. Gentleman will not take that from me, I suggest that he should look at what his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said:
That is a powerful argument… All precedents have been set in this manner. Therefore, precedent of itself is not a conclusive argument."—[Official Report, 14 March 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1703.]
Already we have completed almost all the ambitious legislative programme we set out to achieve in June last year. We must ensure that these two Bills are not lost. Both contain important reforms: in the case of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, the involvement of parents in their children's education; and, in the case of the Housing Bill, measures which will go a long way towards improving the housing situation in this country. Both will substantially increase individual choice and will be widely welcomed.
I urge the House to support the motion.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The guillotine motion which the Leader of the House has just proposed is quite extraordinary, as it proposes that the House should devote to 62 pages of proposed legislation that affects the housing of more than 5 million tenants less time than most Conservative Members would expect their lawyers to devote to the buying and selling of their homes.
We have this extraordinary motion because we are in a most extraordinary situation. The Government's business managers have the benefit of a majority of 100 in the House. They have a guaranteed majority among the geriatrics in the other place. We are approaching the end of one of the longest Sessions in parliamentary history. It has gone from June 1987 to November 1988, and is laughably called a parliamentary year. Nevertheless, the Government need to guillotine two Bills on the last but one sitting day of the Session. Nothing could demonstrate more effectively the incompetence of their business managers.
This is a record bit of incompetence. This is the first parliamentary Session in history—[Interruption.] If the chairman of the 1922 Committee would like to get his bottom off his seat, I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope that he will answer my question. He talks of incompetence, but where was his Chief Whip when the shambles was going on among Labour Members? They were an undisciplined rabble again.

Mr. Dobson: There was no shambles on this side of the House. Opposition Members—I do not mean only members of my party—were anxious about matters affected by the Bill and wanted to debate them properly. They wanted enough time to do that.

Mr. Skinner: So much attention was being paid to this matter the other night that even the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who normally gets home by 12 midnight, became incensed and stayed as well.

Mr. Dobson: I was quite right not to claim a monopoly of concern on this matter.
I spoke to the Clerks last night. They were reluctant to believe me when I asserted that this must be a record Session. When they checked, they confirmed that this is the first time in parliamentary history that a Government have guillotined as many as six Bills in one Session. The Government guillotined the Education Reform Bill, the poll tax Bill, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, the Social Security Bill and now we are expected to guillotine the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill. That tally is based on the strictest reckoning. There were in fact two Education Reform Bills. The first Bill was so altered by the inclusion of provisions to abolish the Inner London education authority that the Bill had to be brought back to the House and reguillotined so that the Government could get it through. We could argue, therefore, that the record is even bigger and that the Government have guillotined seven Bills in one Session.
The previous record was five, which has happened three times, but never in the extended first Session of a Parliament. That demonstrates how incompetent the Government are. They have been reduced to imposing a guillotine six times in one of the longest Sessions in history. It has been a complete mess. With all the advantages—the length of time and the size of their majority—the Government have been reduced to this. That demonstrates their incompetence, particularly the incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, who is not present.
Perhaps the latter should revert to his old title of Patronage Secretary. If what I have been told by Tory Members is true—I leave it to Conservative Members to decide whether their colleagues tell the truth—the Patronage Secretary went around last week persuading some of his flock to vote for charges for dental and optical check-ups by promising them extra money for hospitals in their constituencies. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to go down in history as "Porkbarrel Waddington" or "Dodgy Dave". What he was not doing, however, was organising the Government's business.
We are today being asked to impose a guillotine on the consideration of Lords amendments to two Bills. Both are obnoxious and do not have the support of the people who will be most affected by them—parents and teachers in Scotland and public and private tenants in England, Scotland and Wales. The School Boards (Scotland) Bill was described well by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in the debate on 12 April when he urged the House to reject the Bill because it
pays only lip service to the genuine need to encourage parental involvement in Scotland's schools, will divide parents and teachers, has been rejected by educational opinion and has now been revealed as a paving measure for alien and irrelevant plans to allow schools to opt out of the public sector, which can only damage the proud and distinctive educational tradition in Scotland."—[Official Report, 12 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 43.]
How right he was.
In view of my hon. Friend's comments, it might be reasonable to expect the Lords amendments to be


obnoxious, but they are not. They are quite technical and in many cases simply correct sloppy drafting by the Government. Surely the Government do not need a guillotine to force through debates on such momentous changes as,
delete 'one third' and insert 'one half'
or,
insert 'as often as appears to be necessary'".
whatever that might mean. Why do they need a guillotine to get 21 such small and insignificant amendments through?

Mr. Allen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be extremely difficult to explain to people outside that although we had a lengthy summer recess and will not sit Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, or on Monday of the following week, we are short of time in which to discuss matters of great importance to many people?

Mr. Dobson: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but we should bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said. At the behest of the Prime Minister, at the behest of the chairman of P and O no doubt, the Government decided that they were so committed to getting P and O's shoddy, bought planning permission Bill through the House that they sacrificed a whole day of Government business and then trousered the £100,000 contribution to Tory party funds which was the pay-off for their squalid arrangement. That is how part of the House's time has been used.
The Lords amendments to the Housing Bill are in a quite different category. They are not at all like the minor and limited amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. There are 273 Lords amendments to change the law on housing in England. Wales and Scotland. Those amendments have attracted 43 further Commons amendments, eight of which have been tabled by the Secretary of State himself. As far as we know, the Government originally intended those 273 amendments to be dealt with by 10 pm on Wednesday of this week. The debate started at 5.12 pm, leaving four hours 48 minutes for the debate which was less than one minute for each amendment. That was the ludicrous proposition that was put before us.
It is not as if the Bill is not important and complicated. It is extremely important and complicated and requires a great deal of time for detailed consideration. If any Conservative Members challenge that, they should be asked why, if they were so keen to get the Bill through quickly, it took them from 15 March until 9 June to formulate further amendments after the Bill came out of Committee and before it came back to the House on Report. If it took the Government and their civil servants three months to cobble together the amendments, why were we expected to deal with those amendments in about three days? The Leader of the House claimed that there was an agreement with him that if we did X, Y and Z the Bill would get through, but that is not true. It was not true at the time, and the fact that he repeats it at the Dispatch Box does not make it any more true today.
Nobody should forget that in the middle of the row about progress on the Housing Bill, the right hon. Gentleman went to see my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and threatened, "If you do not lay off on the Housing Bill, we will not be able to get the Short money for Opposition parties through the House."

That is the standard of conduct that was being used to drive the Bill through the House earlier this year. We continue to object to such practices.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the row was not simply across the Chamber? One of the reasons for the delay of many months was an internal dispute in the Department of the Environment between Ministers charged with the passage of the Bill over what the Bill should contain. We were given many promises about concepts which would become law, but which never materialised.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should have loved to be party to the aristocratic discussions about ordinary people's housing that were taking place between the Secretary of State and the then Minister for Housing and Planning. I am sure that they would have been most revealing.
The Bill, whether or not it has been amended by the Lords, reveals modern Toryism in its crudest form. It ultimately intends to offer two alternative forms of tenure: to be an owner-occupier, or to be a private tenant, no doubt of a Tory landlord. The object of the Bill is to take away security, drive up rents and, ultimately, to get rid of public sector housing, which has offered decent standards of housing, a decent level of security and affordable rents to millions of people, as it has been demonstrated for decades that the private commercial sector is, and will always be, incapable of providing a decent home for people who are not very well off at rents that they can afford, and maintaining those homes in a decent condition. Private landlords have never been able to do that. Nothing will be changed by passing a law in the House. It will remain impossible for private landlords to do a decent job for ordinary people.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from all the harm that the Bill will do in the public sector, it will endanger those who have reasonable accommodation in the private sector who are subject to regulated tenancies and who will be at the mercy of landlords who will know that when those tenants are evicted—legally or otherwise—the accommodation can be relet at market rents? Therefore, once again there is the potential danger of Rachmanism.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right, but the Bill goes further than that. Under the assured tenancy concept in the Bill, the Government are trying to create the impression that something is assured for the tenant. The only things assured for the tenant are insecurity and higher rents.
I believe that the Bill is a precursor to removing whatever security private tenants now have and that we will have another Housing Bill in which the Government will try to line the pockets of their landlord friends and remove all security of tenure from private tenants. The Bill is a landlords' charter. It will encourage property speculators to roam council estates trying to identify those which they think they can buy up, tart up and sell off. The Government say that they have provided some protection against that by giving the tenants the opportunity to vote on whether they want a private landlord. That is all very well, until we discover the terms under which those referenda will be conducted. If General Pinochet had conducted the recent plebiscite in Chile on the basis on


which the Government have said that tenants will be allowed to choose whether to have a private landlord, he would have won the referendum despite the views of the people of Chile.
Under the Bill, even the dead will be able to vote for a private landlord. In some senses that is quite reasonable, or at least logical, because only the brain dead would vote for a private landlord. That brings me to the House of Lords. Some people have said that they had hoped the House of Lords would introduce a more democratic element into the Bill. They do not realise that the full title of the House of Lords is the house of landlords. Most of them are landlords. They voted to impose the poll tax because they will do so well out of it financially. It will be interesting to know how many noble gentlemen and ladies declared an interest because of the money that they stood to make if the measures were passed, because they strengthen the hands and line the pockets and handbags of private landlords. In view of some of the backwoods people who were dragged out to support the Bill in the House of Lords, I understand how they might sympathise with the idea that the dead should be allowed to vote. That would guarantee an even bigger Tory majority in the other place.
The Bill does nothing to help most people presently living in public sector housing or private rented accommodation. Opposition Members are convinced that the Bill will create homelessness. Where will people go if they cannot afford to pay the new rents? Who will have the obligation to house them, and will those who have that obligation have any houses for them? There are no houses for them now. That is why they are reduced to living in lodgings. At the moment, about 10,000 of our fellow citizens in London live in filthy, stinking, rotting, verminous and vile bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Conservative Members would not like the idea of living with their children in one room of a bed-and-breakfast hotel. None of them would like to think that their children, having had an interrupted night, and with no opportunity to relax and no space in which to play, had to get up in the morning and go to school. Conservative Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who poses as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, criticise teachers for not doing a good job. How can they do a good job with a small child who has not had a decent sleep, or anything decent to eat in the morning, no relaxation and no place in which to play? That is the position before this preposterous Housing Bill becomes law. Many people will become homeless after its passage.
It is logical that the Bill should harm the homeless, because it was the product of a White Paper on housing that talked about the housing of everyone except those who most need it—the people who are already homeless. The White Paper produced by the Secretary of State did not even mention the word "homeless". The right hon. Gentlemen pays so much attention to the problems of homelessness, which is at record levels, that he cannot even get the word into his White Paper.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is here today, because he was following a precedent that he set. He is good at leaving out important words. He was the man who laid down the rules for the future conduct of London

Regional Transport. Faced with an Act of Parliament which said that LRT should consider economy, efficiency and safety, he wrote an 838-word letter telling LRT what its priorities were, but he did not mention the word "safety". It was all about economising and so-called efficiency. This Bill is all of a piece with the Secretary of State's record. He did not mention safety for people travelling on the Underground, and he does not mention homelessness when he is talking about housing.
That is the sort of person who, in a most incompetent manner, is presiding over the Bill. I feel rather sorry for the Leader of the House. It must be terrible having to cope with the right hon. Gentleman, whose incompetence and arrogance are an amazing combination.
This obnoxious Bill was not substantially improved by the House of Lords, and the House should have the opportunity to set right what the other place has done wrong. It should be given the time to put back into the Bill the measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has worked so hard to include. We must try to make a tolerable measure out of this intolerable Bill.
The Leader of the House heaped paeons of praise on himself for all the Bills that the Government had managed to get through this Session. Many of his friends in the Press Gallery—they were his friends until last Friday—said, "How clever he and the Prime Minister are to get all this controversial legislation out of the way in the first Session." There is a curious assumption that the Housing Bill, the Local Government Act which introduced the poll tax and the Education Reform Act are unpopular only in Parliament. The Government know how unpopular the Housing Bill is now. Just wait until it is put into practice, and then they will know how popular it is outside.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: An engaging feature of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is that he never allows facts to get in the way of the arguments that he wishes to put. He takes no account of what has happened in the House when he makes his standard speech, with the standard amount of abuse, on guillotine motions.
I welcome the guillotine motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman always does".] Unlike those Opposition Members who are talking from a sedentary position, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Bill and was present during many of the debates. There was a big difference between the debates in Standing Committee and our debates on the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Battle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill that has been returned to us from the House of Lords is vastly different from the Bill that we discussed in Committee and that we have a right to discuss those changes? Will he explain why the present proposals on the housing action trusts are different from those which we debated in Committee, or has he not noticed the changes?

Mr. Hughes: I always suspected that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was not listening in Committee, and I have been proved right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the former Minister for Housing and Planning, generously


agreed to make many changes to the Bill in Standing Committee, with the standard words, "We shall return to this and produce our own amendment when the Bill goes to the other place." The fact that he so generously responded to points made on both sides of the Committee cannot be used by the hon. Gentleman as a criticism. My hon. Friend kept his word and amendments were introduced in the other place. Of course, the Bill is different, but that is because of the points that were made during genuine debate in Committee.
Because of the Opposition's tactics we have not had a genuine debate on Report or on the Lords amendments to the Bill. I welcome the guillotine motion because I and many of my hon. Friends will wish to speak on some of the issues later today. We were not prepared to take part in a filibuster and time-wasting exercise by the Opposition. I remind the House of some of their tactics. To extend the debate on the homeless and to make a point about the housing conditions in some of our cities, on Report the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made bird noises in the Chamber. We heard long speeches, including one from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that did not mention housing. The Report stage was a farce, and I was not prepared to take part in it.
During the debate on the Lords amendments, I and my hon. Friends listened with great interest, and with a sense of déjà vu, to a speech by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It became clear that the hon. Gentleman was reading from the Hansard report of a speech that he had made in Committee. It did not make sense then, and he said it with even less conviction on this occasion.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: To my knowledge, the hon. Gentleman made no speeches during any stages of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—or made very few on the issues that I have always raised, and raised the other night on the Floor of the House: homelessness, housing those with special needs, and the Government's disgraceful record on repairs. If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more forthcoming about some of the matters that he mentions now, we would have known his views on the Bill. He was silent for most of the time.

Mr. Hughes: I understand the hon. Lady's disappointment. In Committee, I moved two amendments to the Bill, one of which was successful. The hon. Lady moved many amendments, none of which was successful.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, has made a personal attack to hide the fact that he knows nothing about the plight of the homeless. I have made similar speeches in Committee, on Report and now because the Government have not yet answered the points made. I shall continue to say those things until the Government decide to deal with the problem of homelessness. The hon. Gentleman absented himself from the Committee on many occasions when he could have put his views on the homeless in London.

Mr. Hughes: I do not mind that attack from the hon. Gentleman. One has only to look at the records to note that my attendance rate was at least as good as that of the hon. Gentleman. I do not mind that.
I shall refer to some items that I would like to be discussed when we have a proper debate, rather than the Opposition's filibustering. The first item is homelessness. It

is quite right that the Bill does not mention the word "homelessness". We do not need to mention the word "homelessness" to come up with solutions to the problem. The massive changes that are being made in housing supply—

Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill now mentions the word "homelessness". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not yet read it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point for debate.

Mr. Hughes: The variety of supply that this Housing Bill enshrines will be of enormous help to homeless people, and the added funds that will enable housing associations to do a better job will have a great effect on homelessness.
Another problem that will have a great effect on homelessness—I should like it to be discussed when we consider the remaining clauses of the Bill—is that of empty property. Opposition Members claim to be housing experts, but they are empty property experts. We have noticed that the people who speak loudest about the problem of homelessness in London come from boroughs in which Labour councils hang on to empty property and pretend that there is no way that they can fill it. They are the masters of empires of empty housing. The borough of Newham has several thousand empty properties.
The Inner London education authority—thankfully, to be taken from the people of London—has had some properties empty for 25 years. I can understand that it does not want to hurry itself into making a decision, but I am concerned about the people who could live in such houses. It is a disgrace that two properties in one road in Greenwich, which has a homeless persons problem, have been kept empty by the Inner London education authority and by the political friends of the Opposition for a long time.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Before my hon. Friend moves from the subject of homelessness and empty properties—a problem that has taxed many of us in London for many years—I should hate him not to mention the fact that Labour councils are not only keeping homes empty but Labour councils such as the London borough of Brent are keeping homes full of people—if reports are to be believed—from foreign parts, who perhaps have no entitlement to be there. The London borough of Brent does not realise that there is a black market in Nigeria—if that is the right expression—for filling homes with students who could well afford to pay for accommodation elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. One thing that has kept so many flats and houses empty is the total chaos in which the Opposition's housing empires are run. If they try to rent out such properties, it would probably help if they had accurate records on whether they owned them. For instance, when the London borough of Tower Hamlets owned some property—I accept that that borough is now Liberal, but Opposition Members try to pretend that it is not—it would help if—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it could be confirmed that the hon. Member for


Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is handing to Opposition Members copies of the Govan by-election result. If so, may Conservative Members have some, too?

Mr. Hughes: Many properties are being kept empty because of the confusion, bad management and lack of political will and direction of Labour councils in London.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about how better to use empty properties. Does he contest the statistics that show that the average level of empty property, as a percentage of total property, is lower among local authorities than among the empires, as he referred to them, of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Hughes: I accept that in the areas of most need in Greater London—in the centre of our city—thousands of properties are being kept empty by Labour councils. We should find that very unsatisfactory. Of course there are empty properties elsewhere, but, in areas of need, Labour councils are letting down the people of this country.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in London, there are 25,000 empty council properties, mostly in Labour-run authorities, and 7,500 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Not one of the people to whom the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred need have been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or in the conditions to which he referred had his Labour authorities taken over such properties and put them back into use.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Hughes: It is significant that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seeks to intervene. The borough that he protects and represents is one of the worst offenders when it comes to keeping properties empty.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that no Labour council wishes to keep the homeless out of empty homes? Conservative Members should get some facts right. They know that, through the housing improvement programme, their Government cut money. In my constituency, there are 1,000 dwellings in the sky, because of the defective and rotten construction of tower blocks, for which private enterprise and bad design are responsible.

Mr. Hughes: Conservative Members should be generous and accept that, of course, Labour councils do not want to keep people out of that accommodation and that it is more a matter of incompetence than of not caring.

Mr. Spearing: It is money.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is in danger of losing his seat in the next election because he has the largest swing against him, overlooks one important point about the London borough of Newham. It does not collect its rent. It is owed more than £3 million. If it were to collect that money, it could bring into use some of its 2,400 empty properties.

Mr. Hughes: The interest of Conservative Members and the reaction of Opposition Members demonstrate that that is an important point: there are two distinct views that we should like to discuss. The Opposition's tactics have led to the necessity for a guillotine motion to enable Conservative Members to make their contributions and put the arguments that floor the Opposition.

Mrs. Mahon: On the question of repairing empty council housing, will the hon. Gentleman explain how my local authority, Calderdale, which has been Tory or Liberal-controlled for the past 10 or 12 years, has an £80 million bill to repair council housing? His Conservative friends on the council have blamed his Government.

Mr. Hughes: A council housing empire, whether run by the Conservative party or the Labour party, does not work well. Opposition Members make an art form out of not running council housing empires well.

Mr. James Paice: It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that, because of the shenanigans and filibustering here on Wednesday night, Conservative Members have been prevented from discussing housing and homelessness. We have lost the debate that should have taken place this morning on that very subject, when, no doubt, the House would have been regaled yet again by the same speech from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I wish to move on now to housing action trusts.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is some amusement and concern among Opposition parties. The hon. Gentleman who has just intervened is unknown to Opposition Members. I wonder whether we could know who he is.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that hon. Members carry out their own research. There are plenty of reference books around.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) always claims to have a huge research staff, one would think that he would know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Paice).
One reason why Opposition Members do not want the Bill to be debated properly in the House is that they know that some of the worst estates in this country are in areas where there is despair and grossly bad housing and that they have no answer to those problems. I refer, for instance, to the people of the Ocean estate in Limehouse. The Labour party poses as the friend of those people, but Opposition Members have never provided an answer to those people or decent housing in such areas. The Labour party has pontificated and Labour councillors have stood outside polling stations at local elections, saying "Vote for me today, love, and I will make sure that you will get a decent flat." The Labour party indulges in decent honourable politics like that, but has never done anything to help the people in those areas.
The reality of the housing action trusts is that the Government will produce a substantial amount of money to bring real and genuine help to those areas. That is what Opposition Members do not like and what they do not want to be debated. Under the Bill the HATs will be


statutorily required to consult tenants about their plans for the future. That is right because, of course, tenants must be consulted about what will happen in their areas.
However, I hope that the people in the areas that the Government have designated as housing action trusts will understand that the Government are serious and genuine about wanting to bring them some relief and about wanting to see those areas thrive and prosper, with their people decently housed. People should look back at the record of the mainly Labour councils—there is one Liberal council—and ask themselves, "Has my council ever done anything to help me? Has the Labour party ever come up with a genuine solution to the problems of places such as the Ocean estate?"

Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been pedalling that lie for the past 100 years, will he explain why none of his hon. Friends represents an inner city area?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I am surrounded by inner-city colleagues who do not seem to think that the hon. Gentleman is right. What the hon. Gentleman might find slightly chilling is that, with the exception of the time when I was the opponent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) I shall draw a veil over that because I did nearly as badly as the Labour party did yesterday in Govan—we have a record of success. We should consider the size of the swings in the number of votes from the Labour party, mainly to the Conservatives, when, for instance, I was the Conservative candidate for Stepney and Poplar and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was the candidate for Barking. The message has not yet got through, but it is getting through. People will understand that their real friends are the Conservative Government and that we are the people who will bring prosperity to those areas.
Some time—but not enough—was spent in Standing Committee discussing houses in multiple occupation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, then the Minister for Housing and Planning, stated:
We shall propose a revised definition of an HMO. We shall propose that the management regulations on HMOs that apply minimum standards should apply to all HMOs. We shall also make proposals for simplifying and improving the control order procedure. We shall consult local authorities on means of making the registration scheme more effective."— [Official Report, 9 June 1988; Vol. 134, c. 1062.]
The point that I should have made if we had had a decent debate, and the point that I hope to make later today, is that one problem of houses in multiple occupation is fire. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take that point on board either in this Bill or in the future. A recent survey sponsored by the Department of the Environment estimated that there are 343,000 HMOs in England and Wales. At the very minimum, that means that 1·25 million people live in HMOs. The survey also revealed that 74 per cent. of HMOs lack the legally required means of escape, so on those figures more than 1 million people are living in danger but do not have a right to be told of it.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is reading the speech on multiple occupancy that I made on Report. I object to him using it without my permission. My research was invaluable.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's objection does not constitute a point of order.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that I was reading, but I was reading a press release from the Community Rights Project, which is an expert in this area. The part of the press release that I was reading was a quotation from an hon. Member of this House—the hon. Member for Harrow, West.

Mr. Julian Brazier: If the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) had bothered to turn up for more than a handful of the sittings of the Standing Committee of which he was supposed to be a member, he would know that there had been changes in the arrangements for copyright in Hansard.

Mr. Hughes: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The Labour party is making such a fuss, but not necessarily strong arguments, because it has built up a head of steam behind its own scare tactics. Labour Members have been going around the country scaring people into believing that they will lose their homes and that there will no longer be any affordable homes. The opposite is the truth. Labour Members have used scare tactics in connection with previous legislation and their assertions were not true then. They have said, "If you buy your own home, you will be made homeless because you will not be under the care of the local authority." Those scare tactics need to be nailed, but Opposition Members are scared of their tactics being nailed.
Opposition Members are also scared because they recognise that this Bill is probably the most important Bill this Session. Opposition Members recognise, as I recognise and the Government recognise, that this is the beginning of the end of the housing empires on which the Labour party has thrived and from which people have suffered for so many years. When the Bill is enacted and takes effect, it will have a direct effect on homelessness. It will improve housing choice and housing conditions. The only people who will suffer are Labour Members and their votes in the inner cities.

Mr. Peter Archer: Some of us would like to have known the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on several issues relating to the Bill. Unhappily, the Official Report of the Committee stage does not assist us greatly. Perhaps one of the arguments against the motion is that, if there had been the time, the hon. Gentleman might have intervened at this stage to give us his views.
After his contribution I will return to the motion. The case against it has been deployed clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in so far as it relates to the Housing Bill. The other place was sent a Bill of 127 clauses and 15 schedules and of great importance to the homes of many of our constituents. Their Lordships considered it carefully, as we would expect—we would have complained if they had not—and sent us back 62 pages of amendments. Every consideration of constitutional propriety, every consideration of democracy, every consideration of common courtesy and of decency to the other place would suggest that we should give careful consideration to their Lordships' suggestions.
However, the Secretary of State for the Environment —or perhaps more accurately his right hon. Friends the


Government's business managers—decided that we should deal with all the amendments in one day. When, in consequence, the hour grew late, they decided that the domestic arrangements of their supporters were more important than the Lords amendments and people's homes. So they would not consider these matters on Wednesday and now they want to bundle them all through in one day. In essence, that is what the motion is about.
Perhaps it has been worth having this debate, because we have heard some novel constitutional doctrines. We have heard from the Leader of the House that facts are not debatable and that if the Government say something three times, it is true. At least that is another footnote for the constitutional books of the future.
My principal concern relates not to the Bill in general, but to a more specific matter relating to Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 73 on housing action trusts which have given rise to great concern and anxiety in my constituency. I can imagine the Secretary of State saying, "What is your problem? I am now proposing to the House the very action that you have been urging on me, so I have seen the light." I could understand that submission, although I am not sure that "light" is the correct analogy with which to describe the Secretary of State's mental processes. I doubt whether much light penetrates the fog. I think that during discussions within the Government, they grasped, albeit belatedly, that—even accustomed as the Secretary of State is to mental bilocation—they could not at one and the same time maintain that the Bill is about offering tenants the right to choose and somehow enhancing their freedom while simultaneously denying them the voice on who their landlord should be.
There is a limit to doublespeak, even when the contradiction is between two propositions, both of which are false. But presumably, the Secretary of State intends to admit that he is wrong and is trying to put matters right. As that does not happen very often, perhaps we should encourage the Government in that well-doing. If there were time, some of us would do so. However, we would want to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions about the ballots, because there is still great anxiety about them.
It is only fair to help the Secretary of State to understand some of the implications of his own proposal—

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not intervene in the debates on Report?

Mr. Archer: I did not do so for one simple reason—that those debates had not reached amendments Nos. 72 and 73. My concern is that we may still not reach them.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot let the right hon. and learned Gentleman get away with that. He has said that he is in favour of a ballot on HATs. He did not attend Report to say so, yet at that time the Government had not agreed to such ballots. Why did he not do so?

Mr. Archer: On Report we had no idea whose constituencies would be affected. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that all 650 hon. Members should have intervened on Report just in case any of their

constituencies would have HATs? If so, that cuts across the argument that the Leader of the House advanced this morning. Any such debate would have lasted for ever.

Mr. Soley: For the first time the Secretary of State—perhaps unintentionally—is in danger of misleading the House. In Committee, the then Minister for Housing and Planning promised to announce the HAT areas before Report. The Government reneged on that promise, so that on Report no hon. Member knew whether his constituency would be affected. Indeed, the Government admitted that they had failed to deliver. It is yet another sign of the mess in which the Secretary of State finds himself.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an intervention of fact.
If the Secretary of State had permitted, I would have said that we would have been prepared to discuss these matters with him at every stage. In answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 14 June, the then Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government had not decided on the HAT areas but that as soon as a decision was made he would tell us. I received a letter from the Minister dated 11 July. I presume that it was posted on that day, but it was certainly not delivered on that day. Yet, at 3.30 pm that very day, without even the courtesy of a telephone call, the Secretary of State announced to the House that there would be a HAT in my constituency. I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was treated in the same way.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In fact, the obfuscation was much more profound than that. The Secretary of State did not want any right hon. or hon. Member to know what he was planning. I happened to receive, much before 11 July, an interesting and glossy document. I do not usually read the Government's propaganda, but for once I thought that I should peruse that document. On the last page, under local authorities in the west midlands, is mentioned Sandwell—Windmill lane. That was much before 11 July. I wrote immediately to my town clerk asking what it was about. He had never heard of it. There had been no consultation; there had been no discussion. I received the courtesy, if one can use the phrase about the right hon. Gentleman, of a letter dated 11 July, Śome weeks after this had blown.

Mr. Archer: It is certainly true that Sandwell council was not aware of that. Again, it was sent a letter dated 11 July. The first sign that councillors had that a HAT was proposed in their area was when they heard it on the television news that evening. The tenants were not told what had happened; they learnt about it in the same way. They then received a letter telling them what they already knew.
At that stage, the Secretary of State said that he was still prepared to consult, although even he did not try very hard to suggest that he was approaching the matter with complete objectivity or in a spirit of scientific inquiry. If he had at any stage consulted any of us, we could have spared both him and his Department a great deal of embarrassment. He would have found that, on some matters, we actually agreed with him. I certainly agree that there are problems in Sandwell. We have been trying to elaborate on them over the years. You, Madam Deputy Speaker—although I accept that I must not involve you in


any controversy—have been most assiduous in reminding the Government that there are problems in Sandwell. My hon. Friends and I have been doing the same. Had there been an opportunity today, I could have elaborated on our problems. We thought that the Government were not listening to us.

Mrs. Mahon: They were not.

Mr. Archer: I am not sure about that. There was no reaction from the Government, and they never did anything about the problems. But they have now announced that there are problems in Sandwell, so perhaps they listened to us after all. But had the Secretary of State asked us for help at any stage, we could have spared him and his Department so much embarrassment because we could have told him the facts.
The high-rise flats in Whiteheath in my constituency have indeed been the subject of many problems. They have been a nightmare for those living in them. But they were empty by the time the right hon. Gentleman made his proposal. The tenants had been moved out and rehoused in other accommodation. Sandwell council—starved of resources as it is—has already spent £4·9 million on rectifying those problems. It is proposing to spend another £2·5 million in the next financial year. The council did not keep that a closely guarded secret; it consulted. Indeed, it even consulted the Secretary of State's Department and spoke to his officials. Had the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to ask his officials, they could have told him that they had given departmental approval for the council's plans.
I expect that the Secretary of State will say now, as he said then, that he does not need to know any more because he is already sufficiently informed. I have no doubt that, by now, he will have an interim report from Price Waterhouse, whose staff have been to the Lion Farm estate asking tenants to make statements about how much they appreciate the Secretary of State's concern for them. He must know what the result of the ballot will be. Whether or not there is joy in heaven over a truly repentent sinner, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is joy on the Lion Farm estate. But had he asked us, we could have spared the taxpayer the fees that I do not doubt Price Waterhouse will charge.
The Secretary of State may say that the Government do not need to learn from hon. Members in these debates because they will know soon enough from the tenants. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is still nursing certain fantasies about this. It is possible that he still regards it as an open question. No doubt more taxpayers' money will be poured out to persuade tenants in Windmill lane and Whiteheath to change their minds. The spider will not merely be inviting the flies to come into his parlour he will be employing public relations consultants to issue the invitation. The Secretary of State is entitled to put his case. We are not afraid of free debate. That is what today's motion is about. Now that the tenants are to have the right to choose, I for one will abide by their decision.
One consequence of the way in which the Secretary of State has gone about this is that tenants are clear about the real issues. They do not believe that the Secretary of State has said to his officials, "There are problems in Sandwell. The local Members of Parliament have been right all these years and we must do something for the tenants on Lion Farm estate." The tenants know that it was not like that.

They know that it is all part of the Prime Minister's irrational, obsessive, spiteful feud against local councils, especially those in areas such as Sandwell where the electors have dared to select councillors who are not of the Prime Minister's choosing. The tenants know that they are merely pawns in that game.
It may be that even now the Secretary of State will not believe what he hears. No doubt all the letters that tenants receive from the Government and all the space taken in local newspapers will be seen by the Secretary of State as an honest attempt by the Government to enlighten the tenants and explain the facts to them, while all the letters that tenants receive from the local council will be part of an unworthy conspiracy to brainwash and mislead the tenants. When the Secretary of State hears that the tenants' associations on Windmill lane and Lion Farm will be campaigning for a vote against his housing action trust, he will doubtless dismiss them as a gang of irresponsible extremists assisting the local council in brainwashing those simple tenants. The Lion Farm tenants association will go down on the Prime Minister's list of subversive organisations—along with the Church of England, the Church of Wales, the Law Society, the British Medical Council and the Committee of University Vice-Chancellors.
Had the Secretary of State listened, we could have explained to him that it was not like that. I have always wanted to see a flourishing tenants association on Lion Farm, because I believe that people should be represented in many different ways according to their various interests and capacities. I believe that that is healthy. The tenants will not always agree with the council and they will not always endorse the views of local Members of Parliament, but the tenants association is part of the total voice of the people. The Government do not want a pluralist society. They do not want healthy debate in the House. They do not want to leave powers with local councils. They want power to reside in quangos appointed by Ministers and, in the last analysis, they want all power to lead back to the Prime Minister's chair. They do not want to listen to anyone who interrupts the universal chorus of acquiescence.
The House will know, however, that hubris is always and inevitably accompanied by nemesis. Tenants have flocked to join the tenants associations and have rallied behind those associations. The voice of the tenants associations is the authentic voice of the people of Windmill lane and Lion Farm. I have always been proud of my constituents, but I am especially proud that the Lion Farm tenants association is to be the agent of nemesis. I like to imagine those tenants on winter evenings in future years telling their grandchildren how they showed—or perhaps how they discovered—that people carry their destiny in their own hands when they decide that the time has come to exercise their voice.
The Government may silence the Opposition in the House today, but they will not silence the people, and the Secretary of State's Bill may occupy a bigger place in the constitutional history books than he ever dreamed. I permit myself to wonder whether in the future when people speak of Hampden and Pym and the seven bishops jury they may add a footnote about the Lion Farm tenants association.

Sir John Stokes: I have always had great respect for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has been my neighbour for a considerable number of years. Despite the occasional muddle and wrong-headedness in his speech, I know that he tries most sincerely to represent the best interests of his constituents. I think that I am also a friend, if I may say so, of the exuberant hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman may indeed say so.

Sir John Stokes: —with whose views on the middle east, for instance, I wholeheartedly agree.
As I once had the honour to represent part of Sandwell —Oldbury—and still know the people well as they frequently write to me and I often see them, I listened very closely to what was said. I hope that neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friend will take it amiss when I say that the great tragedy for Sandwell is that it no longer has a Conservative Member of Parliament and that in recent years it has been represented first by an extreme Left-wing council and now by a Left-wing council. Knowing those people as I do, I honestly feel that they would have been happier and better off in every way under a Conservative council.
I rarely intervene in debates of this kind, and my intervention will be brief, but in all my time in this place I have seldom heard a speech of such bluff and bluster, of such callous inaccuracy and even cruelty, as we heard from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, alas, is no longer in his place. His attacks on the honour and integrity of people in the other place were entirely uncalled for and would have been actionable had they been made outside the House. I am surprised that the Opposition, who seemed to be having a brief love affair with the people next door, should make comments of that kind.
Secondly the attacks on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom I have great respect and affection, whom, I have known for many years and whose seat is near mine, were quite uncalled for and utterly disgraceful, as well as bringing in a subject that had nothing to do with the debate. It is amazing that the Opposition, having suffered such a bloody nose in Scotland yesterday, should come here and make such a nuisance of themselves today.
Finally, my constituents next door to Warley—they are very similar people and good Englishmen—cannot understand why I have to waste my time her today, when there are far more important things to do in my constituency. They do not understand why these matters were not dealt with earlier, and they have nothing but contempt for the Opposition.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is an outrageous motion that makes it impossible for us to debate a huge number of important amendments to the Housing Bill. It is the bounden duty of the House to scrutinise and, where necessary, to challenge the intentions and actions of executive government; but how can that duty possibly be discharged if the motion is passed?
It will come as no surprise to the House that my particular concern is with amendment No. 133, for which,

to be realistic, there will now be scant, if any, time for meaningful debate. Quite deplorably, the motion makes no specific provision for the amendment to be debated. Yet it affects the well-being of some of the most needful people in Britain today. I refer to people with severe disabilities, some of whom, if the amendment is approved —it was in part unsuccessfully resisted by the Government in the House of Lords—will have the right to buy their homes.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—readily concedes that the amendment removes a sense of descrimination felt by a number of disabled people, but asserts that a much larger number of people with severe disabilities will suffer, now and in the future, the no less real discrimination of being unable to obtain housing in which they can live their lives independently and with dignity.
In many areas, the shortage of appropriately designed and equipped housing for disabled people now verges on famine. They want the House fully to debate their claims before the Bill becomes law, but to save embarrassment the Secretary of State is trying to gag his critics on both sides of the House. RADAR wants local authorities to buy back properties sold by virtue of amendment No. 133 if and when they are no longer required by their purchasers, and also a duty to replace any properties sold to existing tenants. Both propositions will require the release by the Government of new resources, and it was hoped that the Secretary of State would accept today his responsibility to make adequate funds available if disabled people now waiting for suitable housing accommodation are not to suffer the discrimination that RADAR fears. But what time is there now to debate these propositions with the Minister?
During the 1980s there has been a massive reduction in housebuilding by local authorities, from almost 75,000 dwellings in 1978 to under 15,000 in 1987. Within those figures, the number of units of wheelchair housing fell from 827 in 1978 to 184 in 1987, and those of mobility housing from 7,383 units to 902 over the same 10 years.
Those statistics, about which the Government must now be challenged, are deeply disturbing. Many disabled people regard them as proof of shocking neglect. Their significance should be fully debated by the House. They reflect the extremely low priority given to housing provision for people with disabilities by a Government who now want to dodge debate by means of this disgraceful motion. John Stanford, RADAR's housing policy officer, writing about the Government's departure from the priorities of the 1970s, said:
Policies were developed then which placed consideration of disabled people in the mainstream of housing provision.
That is certainly not true today, yet the motion, if passed, will save the Minister from having to defend his neglect.
The Department of the Environment estimated in the late 1970s—when I was Minister for the Disabled—that 460,650 mobility dwellings and 61,420 wheelchair dwellings were needed nationally, yet by 1986 the total number of mobility dwellings provided by local authorities and housing associations numbered only a derisory 44,125 and the number of wheelchair dwellings only 8,591. Are those worrying statistics not worthy of detailed debate?

Mr. James Hill: I should like to refer to a case in my constituency in Southampton, where two mentally disabled persons, a man and his wife—the


woman is also physically disabled and in a wheelchair—have been placed on the 13th floor of a high-rise block of flats. I have made every attempt to get them moved to ground floor level, with no success. Some local authorities are completely insensitive to the needs of such people, whether mentally or physically disabled.

Mr. Morris: As I have said, the shortage of suitable housing for disabled people is verging on famine, and the inadequate resources available from the Government have made it impossible for local authorities, of all political persuasions, to help those who most need their assistance.
As the Minister knows, we have now had new figures from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys on the prevalence of disability which outdate all previous estimates of need. The new survey, published on 28 September, doubles to 6·2 million the figure on which policies for disabled people have been based. Will the Minister comment on the implications of the new survey for housing policy as it affects disabled people? Again, has the Minister seen the study of housing and support services for people with severe disabilities by the Prince of Wales's advisory group on disability? That report, some findings of which are described as "alarming" by the Wales Council for the Disabled, is aptly entitled "Living Options Lottery" and it strongly underlines the grave shortage—even before the stock is reduced—of appropriately designed and equipped housing for disabled people. The report says that the Government must guarantee fair, secure and consistent funding to create conditions in which severely disabled people can take responsibility for their lives and become integrated into the community. That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).
The Prince of Wales's advisory group shows that, where housing and personal support are available, even the most severely physically dependent person can take responsibility for his or her life and achieve independence and social integration. But what time is available to us to discuss the relevance of that study to the Housing Bill?
The Secretary of State likes to talk in the language of financial constraints, but he must be reminded today that he is involved here in an issue of human rights for people who have the same right as everyone else to be fully a part of society. There is no honour in dodging the debate which we were entitled to expect on that issue. Nor is there any saving in denying disabled people the right to live in appropriately designed and equipped housing. It is self-defeating as well as inhumane to force people into institutions, often at far greater expense to the taxpayer, when, with suitable housing provision and support services, they could live in the community.
What many organisations of and for disabled people want the Minister to accept is that amendment No. 133 has spending implications for the Government which he must now very urgently address. For the House to approve the amendment without any meaningful debate and a definitive statement from the Government on their policies for dealing with its consequences, in terms of new housing provision, would be a gross betrayal of disabled people. I most strongly oppose the motion.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and support the motion. I was a member of the Standing Committee

dealing with the Housing Bill and attended most of the debates in its various stages. It was sad that we had to listen to so much repetition from Opposition Members. It is sad that we have been forced to move this motion to debate the vitally important parts of the Bill that have not been considered because of the delaying tactics of Opposition Members.
I am proud of having been brought up in the north-east and of having served my political apprenticeship there. I was well aware of the political structure of the north-east, which, sadly, has mainly been in the hands of Socialists for too long. After the last war, all parties agreed on the need to construct dwellings for people. The atmosphere at that time in the north-east and elsewhere was non-political; there was a general unity of purpose to provide housing.
Unfortunately, as time progressed, the Labour party politicised local government. It took powers unto itself the like of which I hope we shall never see again. It betrayed the trust of the people of the north-east through its housing powers. The saddest aspect was that criminal action had to be instituted against leaders of the local Labour parties in the north-east in relation to property matters involving the housing of people. That was hardly commendable and must be seen in the light of the expressions of emotion from some Opposition Members about housing and the way in which they think the Government regard it. We have a fine record. The Bill is vital to ensure that that record is enhanced and powers are returned to the people and taken away from those who have betrayed their trust over the years.
I am pleased that we shall be debating the housing action trust proposals. I fail to understand why the Labour party is so opposed to proposals that will be good for tenants and the rundown areas of the inner cities.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: I shall not give way. Opposition Members have spoken for many hours over the past few days and months. It is time that we responded to some of their remarks.
There is nothing in the HAT proposals that a decent man who cares about housing could not support in full.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when he debated this issue with me in Leeds at a meeting organised by the National Federation of Housing Associations he expressed surprise when he was informed that tenants did not have the right to vote or be consulted before being put into a housing action trust?

Mr. Kirkhope: Tenants will be given those rights by the amendments. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I debated this matter quite fully at several venues. We discussed the consultation process with tenants and their representatives.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is not what we are discussing a tribute to the listening qualities of my hon. Friend, who, having heard what tenants were saying, influenced the Government, which led to these proposals.?

Mr. Kirkhope: I should be rather more modest. A number of people influenced that and were part of the discussion process. It is important fully to debate housing action trusts, because consultation is written into every part of our proposals.
I am worried about the politically active role that has been played by Opposition Members and their local authority friends. They have tried to block consultation and discussion, and to prevent tenants from discovering the full facts. I was astonished that marches supposedly organised by tenants who felt so strongly about the Government's measures had among their numbers many Opposition Members, local Labour councillors, trade unionists and others, many of whom were interested not in housing or improving the lot of tenants, but in causing disturbance and attempting to conceal the Government's view. The people whom we wish to consult are not those people but the true tenants, who have not been allowed any rights by Labour-controlled local government administrations to express those views. Part of the reason why we must step in with HATs is that local authorities have failed abysmally to provide the conditions that people deserve.
I cannot understand why there is so much opposition to HATs, which will give more resources to rundown areas and improve the rights of people who live in them. Why should anybody with the interests of good housing at heart oppose this measure? The truth is that many Socialist-controlled authorities hate the thought of losing any of the power that they hold over people. People are only pawns to Socialists. Opposition Members know that many people on housing estates have been cowed. They have to beg for things and cannot be equal in debate or consultation. Opposition Members regard people who want to be involved in the consultation process as fodder for their directives. They know well that that is what has happened under Labour-controlled local government. They would not dream of giving power to people unless they were forced to do so.

Mr. David Martin: Was not exactly the same mistake made when the Conservative party gave tenants the right to buy their properties? Opposition Members said that the right to buy would not take off and that they would repeal it when they took office. They realised that it was popular and gave people power, and they are making precisely the same mistake with this measure.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that subject. It is important to remember the way in which Socialist-controlled local authorities and Opposition Members fought the Government tooth and nail over the right-to-buy provisions. When they failed to persuade through the democratic processes, they did their best to obstruct the implementation of those proposals to prevent people from having the right to buy. It was only when the Government prevailed and insisted on those provisions being instituted that people were able to enjoy them. What has happened as a result? Thousands of people own their own houses, are proud to do so and are looking after them. Those people are now something in their community. They are no longer pawns to be pushed around by local government big-wigs. They are no longer ciphers or appendages to Socialist councillors, to be used at their will. They are individuals with rights and responsibilities and they are proud of it.
That is what the housing action trusts are all about. They will give areas the impetus to improve themselves,

give people pride in their communities and make them concerned and interested in their homes and futures. That is why housing action trusts are such an important part of the Housing Bill and why we are determined that people should have those rights given to them as soon as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The importance of the debate is emphasised by the fact that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have participated, as have two Privy Councillors and, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), one of our most senior and long-standing hon. Members. There is great concern on both sides of the House about the procedures that the Government are forcing us to accept.
When the Leader of the House introduced the debate, he suggested that we no longer need to debate the Housing Bill because all the Government amendments introduced in the Lords were passed without opposition. He went on to say that the debates in the other place lasted 64 hours. The House of Lords debated at length many new matters, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made clear. There was also a Government defeat in the other place on the voting system for housing action trusts, and that has not yet been debated. Also, Opposition amendments tabled in the other place and accepted by the Government have not yet been debated.
Therefore, there are many matters yet to be debated. I shall not try to list them all, but I shall list some of them to show how authoritarian the Government's motion is.
We have yet to debate the registration of land, the application to Scotland of the new rules for housing association finance, the way in which local authorities will be involved in the payment of moneys to housing associations, and their support in the future.
We have major debates yet to come on housing action trusts, the way in which people in those areas will be able to have a say in their future and how the sick and disabled will be treated in housing action trust designated areas. We have yet to debate the way in which the receipt of money will proceed when housing is sold, as well as the approval criteria for passing on property from housing action trusts and the disposal of property.
Part IV—the most controversial part of the Bill and described by the Government as "tenants' choice"—has yet to be debated. We have yet to debate whether shops transfer if the homes attached to them move out of the public sector. We have yet to debate the position of co-operatives, about which there is a series of amendments, the secrecy of information and the Data Protection Act 1984. We have yet to debate the possibility of sales under the right to buy after transfer out of the public sector, and there is still the major debate on the voting system, which we insist is clearly rigged. There is a problem about the date from which people can be allowed to move into areas on council estates while the tenants' choice procedure is taking place. That could have far-reaching effects on local councils. We have to debate whether areas of the green belt are exempt from housing transfer under tenants' choice.
Lords amendment No. 133, under part V of the Bill, gives the right to buy to tenants of homes converted for the disabled. That has been a matter of controversy on the several occasions on which it has been debated. What


happens if the right to buy is delayed? What happens, in national parks, about houses bought under the right to buy? How much of the Bill should apply to Scotland? How much of the Bill should be extended to have stronger anti-racist measures? How much of the Bill should be developed in order to alter the law on agricultural tenancies? What is the effect of the Bill on the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)? All those matters are yet to be debated, but the Government insist that we have only another four hours for this and one more piece of legislation.
The tragedy is that there is plenty of time before the date fixed for the state opening of the new Session. The guillotine is being imposed to suit the Government. Never mind the convenience of tenants or the millions of people throughout the country—the convenience of the Government dictates whether people will have their rights debated. The business on Monday is of little relative importance. There is a consolidation measure and debates on motions on European Community documents. For the rest of the week we are expected to go away from here content, while many of the issues affecting tenants have not been debated.
If the debate on the guillotine is successful, I will hand to the Secretary of State a list of questions. They are questions that the Government have not yet answered and they deal with the most controversial part of the Bill. Before the debate ends, will the Secretary of State put on record that the correct interpretation of the voting system for tenants' choice is that people who fail to vote will be counted as voting to agree with transfer? He has never answered that question directly. Will the Secretary of State, before the end of the debate, acknowledge that it is possible under the Bill for somebody who has died to be counted as voting yes? Will somebody who dies after the "relevant date" and whose death is not known about by the independent teller be counted as having voted in favour? I know the answer, and the Bill makes the answer clear, but the Secretary of State has not yet come clean. Is it not possible for an empty house or flat to be presumed to have voted yes if the independent teller is not informed when somebody moves away after the relevant date?
Will the Secretary of State answer the most fundamental question of all that has been put to Ministers in both Houses over the past 12 months? Why would the Bill not he improved by a requirement that there has to be a majority vote in favour before a transfer of ownership takes place? Why would an ordinary voting system not be fairer than the proposed voting system? Why invest a new constitutional arrrangement which depends—I shall quote a letter sent to me from the Prime Minister in August—on people
agreeing … implicitly through informed acquiescence".?
Why not test whether people acquiesce by the most straightforward and obvious method used in this country every time we have a political election—yes or no? that is the way opinion should be tested. Why do the Government not allow tenants to vote in that way?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that that is what we propose in relation to the ballot on HATs. Why has the Social and Liberal Democratic party tabled an amendment opposing that?

Mr. Hughes: The Government have made a concession on HATs, but, as the debate will show, it is an ambiguous

concession. It is not clear whether what was successful as an amendment to the Bill in the Lords will be the same in the amendment in this place. That is why we will debate my amendment and the issue in the next debate.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He said that the matter should be decided by a majority of those voting. That is not what the Lords amendment said. It said that it should be decided by a majority of those entitled to vote. The hon. Gentleman and his party have tabled an amendment supporting the Lords, and he is now saying that he agrees not with the Lords but with the Government.

Mr. Hughes: That is not correct. The Secretary of State knows that the other place passed an amendment to his legislation to the effect that the change should be approved by the majority of those allowed to vote. We believe that that is the best way of resolving the issue in housing action trust areas. In the Government's own legislation affecting employment law, a simple majority is regarded as being insufficient and probably unrepresentative. As between the option presented by the Government in this House or that which succeeded in another place, the latter is the better of the two.
If the Secretary of State will make an announcement today, as did the noble Lord Caithness on television last Sunday, that the same voting system as he is proposing for housing action trusts will be available to tenants who are at risk of having their properties taken over by private or other landlords, and that he will accept a simple majority of those voting, let alone of those entitled to vote, he will find much less resistance today to the undemocratic proposals that he is making in amendments that we have yet to debate.

Mr. Ridley: It is only two minutes since the House heard the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) say that in relation to housing action trusts, he is in favour of a system whereby a majority of those voting will decide. He has now twisted that statement and said that he does not agree with something that had his agreement two minutes ago.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State could not have been listening. All my comments so far about the voting system have been in relation to part IV of the Bill, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is about not housing action trusts but what he calls tenants' choice, and what we call landlords' choice, and the way in which tenants will have their homes taken from them. All my comments about the voting system have been aimed at that aspect. Earlier, I briefly alluded to the fact that we have yet to debate housing action trusts, and over which the Government were defeated in another place. That is good enough reason for ensuring that there is time for proper debate of all these vital and important matters affecting millions of people—and I am not exaggerating—before the matter is finally resolved in this House.
Last week, the Government published a draft code of practice governing strike ballots. Why do the Government not apply the same test as they adopt there in relation to the Housing Bill? The code of practice states:
A simple or even substantial majority might not he actually representative if many of those given entitlement to vote in the ballot did not actually do so.
Why have one test for trade unionists and another for tenants? Also, for a school to opt out of local authority


control, there must be a majority of those voting in favour, whereas for an estate to opt out, no one needs to vote in favour of so doing, let alone a majority. Housing estates can be transferred without a single tenant expressing a positive view in favour of that action. Why the double standards? Why the inconsistency? Why the Government's hypocrisy in not applying the same laws to some people in this country as apply elsewhere?
It is symbolic of the Government that, at the end of this Session, they introduce an authoritarian measure to guillotine debate on this enormously important legislation. In 1649, the monarch was here one day and the guillotine appeared the next. It is somewhat ironic that in 1988, the Government have to bring down the guillotine on a democratically elected House of representatives so that royal ceromonial may be allowed to proceed, while tenants are not allowed to have their say about the future of their own homes.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was probably the most vacuous ever made on a guillotine motion since the procedure's introduction in 1881. Having made his speech, the hon. Gentleman has now disappeared from the Chamber.

Dr. John Cunningham: Where is the Leader of the House?

Mr. Bennett: I was interested to learn of the number of properties standing empty in the constituencies of Opposition Members, under Labour-controlled authorities. That must be the measure by which we judge the Opposition's indignation. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras waxed lyrical about how disgraceful this Bill is, but perhaps he should look in his own backyard. He is an ex-member and leader of Camden council. In 1987, that authority had 1,069 properties standing empty, accounting for 3·1 per cent. of its housing stock. By 1988, it had managed to increase the number to 1,829. It is not only that Camden council is unable to manage its housing stock, for we know also that it has closed its public libraries, that its streets are not swept, that the roads are left unrepaired, and that the authority is collapsing; its Member of Parliament comes to this House to attack a Bill that will increase tenants' opportunities.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has not yet spoken in this debate but was prominent in Standing Committee G.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have been too busy Whipping, trying to get some order into this wretched debate. No wonder I do not have the time to speak in it.

Mr. Bennett: I can never keep up in knowing whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is or is not a Whip.

Mr. Banks: They only call me in for the difficult ones.

Mr. Bennett: I am delighted to learn that the hon. Gentleman is an agency Whip and has taken Tory principles to heart in privatising the Opposition Whips' office.
The figures for Newham show that the number of empty properties there in 1987 numbered 2,777, or 8·6 per cent. of its housing stock—the second worst figure in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member may tell the House, as he did in Committee, that a number of Newham's tower blocks are standing empty. I obtained the figures, and I must be fair to the hon. Gentleman. If one excludes categories A93 and A94 on the HIP, being those properties requiring major repairs or where repairs are in progress, one is still left with 1,444 empty properties. That figure still puts Newham in the top 10, even if one excludes tower blocks. So the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had better start talking about their own local authorities before criticising the rest of us on the question of homelessness.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who was present in the Chamber at the beginning of this debate but is now absent, was prominent in our earlier debates this week. On Wednesday he spoke for 40 minutes—and he was not filibustering. The hon. Member for Brent, South ought to have a word with his own local authority and ask why in 1987 it had 745 empty properties, and why by last year the figure had risen to 1,261. He should ask why his own local authority is collapsing around his ears. Why is not the hon. Gentleman present to tell the House what Brent council intends doing to improve the situation? He has taken to heart the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who also put in an appearance before vanishing again, and who believes that Brent council is worse than Pol Pot in its administration. Perhaps we ought to remember that.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who is an ex-member of Manchester city council, has previously lectured us about the problems of homelessness. Perhaps he will explain why Manchester's local authority has 4,800 empty properties.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the hon. Member, to be accurate, tell the House how many of those properties are empty because they are due for demolition as they are unfit for human habitation?

Mr. Bennett: I am flicking through pages of HIP figures so that I may give the House that information. I find that, in categories A93 and A94, Manchester has 1,300 properties under repair out of the 4,800 that are empty. In other categories, Manchester has 1,005 empty properties. In category A96, the number of properties awaiting demolition out of the 4,800 that are standing empty is 30.

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman had the up-to-date figures rather than last year's HIP allocation, or if he had taken the trouble to contact Manchester city council to discover how many properties are currently awaiting demolition and then taken those away from the figures to which he has already referred, he would find that the 4,000 he referred to is nearly 1,800. That is the figure the hon. Gentleman should quote to the House.

Mr. Bennett: I have the latest HIP figures and, to be generous, I will double the figure to 60 out of 4,800.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) popped in and popped out earlier. What about the Socialist republic, the Militant town of Liverpool. We continually hear about how desperate things are there. Liverpool comes top of the empty properties league. One in 10 of the council properties in Liverpool is empty. In


1987, 6,955 properties were empty. Let us be fair to Liverpool. I wanted to see whether there was an improvement in 1988, so I considered the HIP figures for this year. Liverpool has managed to do very well. It has increased the number of empty properties from 6,955 to 8,000. That is the record of Socialist Liverpool.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) bored for Britain in Standing Committee. He bored us so much that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) presented him with a small cup for being the most boring member of the Committee. In Southwark and Bermondsey, just under 2,000 properties were empty in 1987.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) presented the cup, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was elected by democratic ballot as the most boring member of the Committee.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right. It was not a question of a simple majority verdict; the verdict was unanimous.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who did not speak in Committee, I was present at all the debates and participated in all the major votes. I will continue, with my colleagues, to fight the Bill and the guillotine to the end.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has suffered a lapse of memory. I distinctly remember hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) speak in Committee. I also remember the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey leaving our deliberations on many occasions to speak to his large team of researchers in the Corridor, to appear on television to tell the public why he did not agree with his party's proposals on its constitution, and why he had decided to become a Liberal member of the Social and Liberal Democrats. We all remember the crisis of confidence that the hon. Gentleman suffered in Committee.
There were 1,952 empty properties in Southwark in 1987. In 1988 Southwark and Bermondsey could not even supply the figure for the HIP.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my hon. Friend recognise that not only is there a disgracefully high number of void properties in the council stock in Southwark, but that its rent debt is now running at more than £30 million? Is that not disgraceful? The South London Press today discloses that one tenant is in arrears for £8,000. Does not that suggest that there is something rotten in the state of Southwark?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend anticipates me because I want to refer to rent arrears in a moment.

Mr. Bowis: Not only are those hideous statistics true, but 1,672 properties in Southwark have squatters. Are not the figures indictments of the municipal failures populating the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Bennett: I want to be fair to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Southwark and Bermondsey is not a Liberal-controlled council. The hon. Gentleman lives under a Labour-controlled council. However, let us consider Tower Hamlets, which is across the river from Southwark and Bermondsey. Tower Hamlets has a

Liberal-controlled council. It had 2,825 empty properties last year; and of course it has not been able to provide figures for this year.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) lectured us from a position of moral superiority in Committee and in this place. He should have a word with his authority about the increases in empty properties owned by Hammersmith and Fulham council. It has 776 empty properties.
Finally, I want to consider that great deprived London borough Hackney. How many times have we heard from Labour politicians that it is the most deprived borough in Britain? Why has it got 3,113 empty properties? Why can it not tell us this year's figures? It does not have the management system to produce the figures.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber.
The Bill is vital for council tenants so that they may have the right to choose landlords. It is vital because it will give them freedom, which they have not enjoyed over the past century, to decide whether they want to continue to put up with the present management and repair system operated by so many local authorities.
I speak from the experience of eight years as an opposition leader on a local council. I witnessed the complaints about the way in which the authority ran its housing repairs; about the length of time that tenants waited for repairs to be carried out; about the condition of estates and the fact that the lights did not work; about the fact that roads and windows were broken and the walls covered in grafitti. I was concerned for the tenants, but that concern was not shared by members of the majority party.
The sheer size of the municipal empires is a problem. Manchester has nearly 90,000 properties. How on earth can it run them properly? How on earth can it manage a property portfolio of that size? That is why tenants are so dissatisfied. That is why the Bill is so important: it will help tenants to choose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred to rent arrears. Rent arrears are another example of what is happening in these municipal empires. In Camden, the borough covered by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, rent arrears have increased from £4·6 million to £5·7 million, and 56·4 per cent. of tenants are in arrears with their rents. On the HIP submission, rent arrears in Brent have risen from £6 million to £11 million and 70 per cent. of tenants are in arrears with 28 per cent. —more than one in four—owing more than £500. No wonder the borough must send letters to Nigeria to collect rent and that it is not sure how much is owed. That is the problem with the municipalisation practised by the Labour party.
Rent arrears in Manchester have risen from £5·2 million to £8·8 million. In Liverpool the rent arrears figure is £9·5 million, and it could not provide the figures for this year. In 1987 the rent arrears figure for Southwark was £14·7 million and it is £30 million this year. Rent arrears in Hammersmith have risen from £1·9 million to £2·1 million. In Tower Hamlets they have risen from £2·2 million to £2·8 million, and in Hackney from £6·6 million in 1987 to £10·5 million this year.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Is it any wonder that the hon. Gentleman can give us those statistics about rent arrears when we know that millions of people are suffering poverty as a result of Government policies? Is it any wonder that he can quote them when 16 per cent. of people who received housing benefit have had that benefit cut? If the hon. Gentleman answers those questions, he will see that rent arrears have risen because of growing poverty brought about by the Conservative party.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member has not been listening. First, all the figures that I have given for rent arrears increases relate to a period before the increases in housing benefit in April.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about increasing poverty in this country. Why in that case is a man on three quarters of national earnings now 24 per cent. better off in real terms under the present Government than he was between 1974 and 1979? If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about poverty, let him look at the figures for real earnings between 1974 and 1979. People in this country have never been better off than they are now.
Thirdly, as for rent arrears, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with authorities such as one in my area which, 12 weeks after the new housing benefit regulations came in, still had not informed its tenants what their rents were. No wonder most tenants were in arrears. That is an example of the incompetence of municipal housing managers throughout the country.
I have spoken for long enough. That will prompt a cheer from the Opposition. Let me conclude by referring back to what Opposition Members said about the Housing Act 1980 and the Education Reform Act 1988—[Interruption.]

Mr. Irvine Patnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to call my colleague a liar from a seated position?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is not in order; but I certainly heard nothing of the kind.

Mr. Bennett: Opposition Members—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) loves to attack me. He is the only Tory Member in south Yorkshire, where there are 17 Labour Members. I said that the hon. Gentleman should sit down because he had distorted the truth for long enough. I then added, "I am not, of course, allowed to call him a liar."

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has not given any examples. He degenerates his entire argument with vague abuse, because he has not the facts at his disposal.
Let us look at the position of Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has just produced for me a leaflet which I gather is being circulated. Sheffield! That Socialist authority, I gather, has already cut £20 million from its 1988–89 budget, and proposes to cut a further £40 million for the following two years. It has cut 1,000 jobs from its payroll, and has already sold or shut

six old people's homes. Bradford is falling behind Sheffield. Sheffield is leading the way, and has already implemented huge rent rises.

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me which of those facts is wrong, I will give way.

Mr. Flannery: Has the hon. Gentleman mentioned in this disquisition which shows such a lack of knowledge that, owing to shortage of staff, the DHSS payments forced on people by the present Government have come through much later than they should have on the council estates? That is one of the Government's main responsibilities. Will the hon. Gentleman stop distorting the truth for once?

Mr. Bennett: This must be the first time in the history of the city of Sheffield that anyone has said that the city council is short of staff. Sheffield city council is the largest employer in Sheffield. If the hon. Member for Hillsborough would like to have a word with his city council and tell it to stop employing race monitoring groups, police committees and women's committees and get on with doing the job that a local council ought to do, perhaps the tenants would get their rent details on time, and also get their repairs done on time.

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, despite what he has said, Sheffield council gets a bigger Labour vote every year while the Tory vote goes down every year?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the percentage of voters in Sheffield who actually pay rates. We are introducing the community charge so that everyone in Sheffield who has a vote in the local elections knows the cost of Sheffield city council. At present only a third of voters contribute.

Mr. Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sheffield city council now has approximately 35,000 full-time employees compared with 30,000 several years ago? Will he compare Bradford's cuts with those that Sheffield has made? Will he also tell us how many old folk's homes Sheffield has closed compared with Bradford?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend tempts me greatly to go down a road that I do not wish to follow. However, when one sees that Bradford is proposing cuts amounting to £6 million compared with the £20 million cuts that have already been made in Sheffield one realises that they are in a different league. Labour-dominated Sheffield is leading the way by showing us what good local government ought to be in the future, even though it has not practised it for the past 20 years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. I do not intend to give way again.
In the 1980 debates on the Housing Bill, Opposition Members told us that tenants would not want to buy their properties and, 1 million tenants later, some of them still believe that. We were told in the debates on the Education Reform Bill in 1987 that parents would not want to opt out. Within weeks of the Bill becoming law, school after school held elections and parents voted by more than 90 per cent. to opt out of local authority control.
The Bill will give council tenants the right to decide whether they wish to opt out of local authority control. It will also end the more than 60 years of rent control that has stultified the housing market and resulted in the lowest percentage of rented accommodation anywhere in western Europe. It has made it difficult for young people to find rented accommodation when they move because they do not qualify for municipal council housing. We shall do away with restrictions that have made it impossible for anybody who owns an empty property to rent it and get a fair return on it. The Bill is vital. The guillotine motion must be passed without further ado.

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I realise the passions that have been aroused and the interest that has been shown by my hon. Friends in the Housing Bill. I regret, therefore, that I must move away from that measure and speak about the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, because I wish to oppose the motion.
It is a disgrace that a guillotine motion has been moved on both the Housing Bill and the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. The fact that Conservative Members have decided to filibuster on the guillotine motion shows the lack of confidence that they have in their own arguments. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to oppose the guillotine motion on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. I do so for three reasons.
My first reason is out of courtesy to the Minister of State, who earlier this morning made the arduous trip down here after the even more arduous task last night of explaining why just over 7 per cent. was a marvellous triumph for the Conservatives in Govan and why just under 40 per cent. was a desperate failure for Labour.
Secondly, despite the mass protests and the massed armies of the SNP last night, I regret that unfortunately not one SNP Member has turned up in the Chamber, even for a minute, to oppose the guillotine motion on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. I should have assumed that that was the result of the celebrations, were it not for the fact that out of the six hours and 22 minutes that have been spent on the Housing Bill, SNP Members could make only a two-minute contribution—to testify to the opposition to the Bill in Committee by the Labour party.
Thirdly, I oppose the motion because the only silver lining to the Govan by-election—I do not claim that it is a big one—is that it has provided the context for this morning's debate on a guillotine motion on yet another piece of un-Scottish unpopular legislation, which once again will be passed without full debate, although it is opposed by almost every section of Scottish society.
It is patently obvious that I do not agree with the result of the Govan by-election. We all have an interest in understanding the frustration that was registered there. The result of the by-election can be understood in the context of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill being guillotined and pressed on an unwilling Scottish population.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: I want to be brief and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, he spoke for almost half an hour.
Almost every opinion poll in Scotland shows that the Scottish people oppose the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument most carefully. He mentioned the Conservative party achieving 7 per cent. of the vote in Govan. That is also the figure which the exit poll showed is the satisfaction rating with Labour Members of Parliament in Scotland. No Labour Front-Bench spokesman on Scottish matters is present. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's complaint about the guillotine motion arises out of the fact that all the proposed amendments are positive ones which were put forward by the Opposition in another place and arise out of ideas advanced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which, of course, is dominated by the Labour party. The remainder of the Bill has passed through the House rather ahead of timetable, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) has taken a positive approach to it and decided to opt out of being on the Opposition Front Bench this morning.

Dr. Reid: I shall come to the Minister's reception of advice in due course. I know that he would not like to mislead the House about last night's opinion poll. Some 45 per cent. of respondents said that Labour Members of Parliament are doing a fairly good or very good job. When it came to asking how well Conservative Members in Scotland are doing, the pollsters did not even bother to ask that question, but merely looked at the by-election result.
Every opinion poll shows that Scottish people oppose the principle of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. Every eminent educationist and most uneminent educationists oppose it. In spite of the cloak of secrecy in the Scottish Office, it is rumoured that every eminent Civil Service education adviser opposes the principle. Only the Minister can confirm or deny that. He will be aware of the dangers of playing the Scottish card.
The Anglicisation of the Scottish education system has been a major issue and has attracted much attention in Scotland. If the Minister is worried about the lapse into quasi-nationalism last night, he would do well to recognise that a Government who cannot show any magnanimity in victory will breed bitterness and defiance among those whom they think they have defeated.
The strength of many people in Scotland who want the union to end derives from the Government's attitude. That attitude was summed up by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), when he said that Oppositions are a nuisance. We understand that Oppositions are regarded as a nuisance, but they are also regarded as somehow subversive to the Government's control. The biggest opposition, which has been regarded as the biggest nuisance and treated with the greatest contempt during the past nine years, consists of the vast majority of the people of Scotland, who share neither the culture not the educational priorities of the Minister and the Government.
I have no wish to avoid the conclusions that must be drawn from the result in Govan—for my party or for any other. Two things were shown last night. Now that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has returned, I am reminded that three things were shown last night. The first is that the protest vote was powerful enough to shove the hon. Gentleman back into a kilt, for


reasons that are unknown to most of us. Secondly, it showed the frustration of many people in the Scottish electorate at the inability of the Opposition to deliver back a Labour Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members still wish to speak on the allocation of time motion. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to that motion and not to what happened last night elsewhere.

Dr. Reid: It relates directly to the guillotine on this important legislation. The third reason was precisely what happened last night. It would be an irony if the Minister and his colleagues, who seek to impose a uniform United Kingdom, were in the long run to be the biggest architects of the division of that United Kingdom. But he is heading in that direction.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister intervening?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is giving way or has he sat down?

Dr. Reid: I have finished my speech.

Mr. James Hill: I shall speak only for a very short time. Since 9.30 am, our debate has revolved around London and two other great cities in this country. The debate has concerned the mismanagement of local authorities. All the facts and figures about the number of properties kept vacant, awaiting repair, or being used as squats, can lead to only one conclusion—that management is inadequate.
I was involved in our discussions on the Housing Bill 1972. The current measure would have been an ideal Bill for 1972. It is almost impossible to repair some of the damage that Socialist authorities have done over many years. They built high rises and kept people thoroughly under their thumb by making all sorts of housing restrictions, telling people to go away and have more children so that they might qualify for a flat. They told people, "We are in charge of the management of the council properties. We will house you but do not expect to be able to come back for a transfer. You must try and arrange that between yourselves and we shall probably turn you down anyway." I get the impression from my parliamentary advice service that housing departments do not treat people as human beings, but as a nuisance. The staff in the reception areas are not interested in the manifold problems and people cannot get through to any of the officers to complain to the higher spectrum of the department.
People are so dissatisfied that I do not share the fears of the Opposition because I believe that a great number of people will vote to leave council properties. They will want housing associations to take over. In my area, the Stonham housing association and the Swaything housing association have reputations to which the local authority could never aspire. Housing associations have been encouraged to set up blocks of flats or groups of houses

—particularly the British Legion, Anchor, Collingswood and Silken housing associations. We have tried to do exactly what the Secretary of State is doing today—to encourage more people to take over the individual managerial problems of providing private rented homes. That will be one of the great successes of the Bill.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I do not know whether the Housing Corporation will receive enough funds for what I believe will be an avalanche of applications from housing associations. We keep hearing about Rachman—I do not know whether he is a housing association. We keep hearing about the bad old days when landlords went through the streets with Alsatian dogs. They are some of the silly red herrings that are part of Socialist folklore. Some Labour Members went through the first Socialist indoctrination on housing, and the catch phrase, "Every landlord is Rachman and every local authority is best at managing housing", came into existence. Those myths have lived on for far too long and must be laid to rest.
Good management is essential in running an estate of any size. If there is good management, a good work force to carry out repairs and sympathetic people to listen to complaints, there will be contented tenants. I throw out a challenge to Opposition Members. If they can put their hands on their hearts and say that their local housing authorities have all those attributes, they must be living in a wonderland that I have never experienced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will help to resolve the problem. I want to see as many separate landlords as possible, preferably housing associations, in Southampton. If we could have 50 more housing associations and other landlords to take over its 23,000 council houses, housing in Southampton would have a rosy future.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I shall not waste too many words on what has been said by Conservative Members this morning. They have treated the whole thing as a bit of a Friday lark. Homelessness—the appalling problems of people without anywhere to live—is a joke to most of these juveniles. It is a disgrace and an absolute shame that these important matters are treated with so little regard by Conservative Members. Their only excuse can be that they do not know anything about council tenants and that they are totally politically inexperienced —[Interruption.] That little lad waving his Order Paper —the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—made what I thought was the most juvenile contribution that I have heard in a serious debate. He should be ashamed of himself.
We have not had enough time to discuss this measure for a lot of reasons. At the inception of this legislation, the Secretary of State had no intention that these matters should be properly examined. The other night, when we could have sat through until half the next day, at 3 o'clock in the morning the Secretary of State was so exhausted —indeed, so emaciated—that he could not last the night. He slipped off into the dark passages and the business of the House was abandoned.
Then what did the Government do? They did not provide us with time to debate this matter for three days next week, when we could easily do so. The time is there. What did they do? They introduced the Friday filibuster,


and all the local lads who can slip off to their London flats later this afternoon were asked, "Do hang around on Friday morning and try to abort the business", which is exactly what they have done. The people of this country are not so easily fooled. One or two communities around Britain may have realised what this is all about.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Faulds: No, I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to speak. We have had enough of the filibuster this morning and I would like eventually to get to the parts of the Bill that we want to discuss.
The obfuscation by the Secretary of State was intentional. This little document "Estate Action Third Annual Report", was, I suppose, slipped out by accident about 20 June. I read the final page of it on 23 June, and wrote to my town clerk, wondering whether he knew about these intentions about housing action trusts affecting an estate in my constituency. He had never heard of it. There had been no discussion and there had been no consultation. We were not officially informed about the Secretary of State's intentions until a cyclostyled letter of 11 July which, after it had been announced, and to which reference has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and which I think is only part of the pattern of trying to keep quiet about these matters so that the public will not tumble what has happened.
I wanted, had there been time—and there still is time if the Government are prepared to provide it next week—to discuss amendments Nos. 72 and 73 because they gravely affect my constituency. I have many hundreds of council tenants on whom one of these housing action trusts, the Government hope, will be imposed. Now what does that mean for them? Windmill lane—[Interruption.] Perhaps if Conservative Members would have the courtesy to listen, they might learn a little about the actualities of life for council house tenants.
The area in my constituency is called Windmill lane. Over the past three or four years, ironically, the local authority has spent a great deal of money on improving the estate. Is this part of a subtle ploy so that the local authority will do its duty and fulfil its responsibilities to those tenants, and the Secretary of State, when the housing action trust is imposed, will claim the credit? I wonder how many other of the housing action trusts intended—

Mr. Simon Hughes: All of them.

Mr. Faulds: All of them. All of them apparently fall into this category. The local authority will largely have done the work, even on its limited funding, and the Secretary of State will say, "This great new Conservative project; look what we have done to these council estates." Well, I do not think that they are going to be fooled.
I have never known an issue in my many years as the Member for Smethwick which has aroused such vehement opposition from council tenants, and it has not been organised with a propaganda campaign. They have not suffered yet—certainly not from the Opposition—the influx of propaganda leaflets that the Secretary of State is now going to shower on them to try to convince them what an excellent project this is. It was a natural reaction when they heard what was going to happen. I will tell the House why.
These tenants—these council tenants—are not fools. My right hon. Friend, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd)—and I know probably more about council tenants than most Conservative Members. We know them as friends. We go there nearly every weekend and meet these people. They are highly intelligent, some of them. They know what the Government intended. They are not as gullible as "the quality" on Government Benches think that they are. My God, to use the word "quality" about this bunch! Their traditional predecessors, the decent responsible one-nation Tories, must be whirling in their graves looking at that lot and what they are doing to the people of this country.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Faulds: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman came in five and a half minutes ago, and he is not going to interrupt my speech. [Interruption.] He may have been asked to prolong the matter with the filibuster; he is not going to do it to me.
Those people realise the implications of this legislation. They know what it means for them. They are going to lose their security of tenure. Their rents will inevitably go up. The property mafia will be rubbing their hands at the prospects of the profits. They are going to make enormous killings out of this exercise. Rachmanism— a word that was introduced into the English language in the 1960s—is a malevolent, stinking name. I had better warn Conservative Members, there is going to be an addition to that collection of ghastly names. There are going to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] We do not know them yet, but they will crop up—names like Rachman, who will make killings out of the suffering and the homelessness of thousands of our constituents, and they will enter the English language by the grace of the Secretary of State, because he will be the one who has given these lads the opportunity to use their revolting greed at the cost of the suffering of the ordinary people of Britain.
If we had not put up an opposition to this so-called ballot, the people of those housing estates would have had to suffer the rigging that the Secretary of State intended in the ballot. He can grin that silly little grin, but that is what the legislation stated and he knows it—and so do all his advisers around him and those on his Benches. Had it not been for the opposition that we put up, that ballot rigging would not have been changed.
However, we have had the reassurance of a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) informing those of us whose constituencies are affected by housing action trusts—it was written on 7 November, which is not a very long time ago—that Lord C'aithness in the other place, with his vast experience of the way in which council house tenants live—he knows so many of them from going around his constituency at elections and he knows the sufferings of council house tenants—at last, because it was a risky political exercise to introduce a rigged ballot in this particular parliamentary democracy, has been prevailed upon to write to those of us whom it is intended should have housing action trusts forced on our constituencies I shall read one sentence of his letter of 7 November.
We propose that if a majority of tenants who vote in the ballot are against his proposals, the Secretary of State should not lay a designation order before Parliament.
Knowing the reliability and responsibility of this particular Secretary of State, I would have been—no, let


me be precise—I should have been much happier if, instead of saying that the Secretary of State "should not lay" the letter had said that the Secretary of State "will not lay". Perhaps that matter will be considered when the Secretary of State replies.
It is quite clear that the genuine opposition of hundreds of thousands of council house tenants to this rotten project is immense. I can assure the Secretary of State that if a proper democratic process is pursued in these matters—and the cheering thing is that the Lord Caithness has come round to accept the democratic principle in Great Britain —if those ballots are held I can assure the Secretary of State that he is wasting his time, the Government's time and the time of the House in trying to impose any housing action trusts on the people of my council estates and on those of Madam Deputy Speaker—no, I must not introduce my hon. Friend into this debate—and on all of us in whose constituencies there was and is an intention to introduce housing action trusts. I can assure the Government that the people concerned will not have it. There will not be a single housing action trust introduced into any of these constituencies.
It is shameful that the Secretary of State, absolutely in keeping with his typical conduct, should try to introduce a measure like this and then do everything that he could before the presentation of the Bill, after the presentation of the Bill and even at this late stage to avoid discussion of these essential issues. Well, he has not managed to do it and the people will not have his silly, limited, anti-democratic ideas imposed upon them.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Bill has been before the House for one year. It has been a year of Government incompetence, prevarication and delay since November 1987 when the Government published the Bill, immediately withdrew it, pulped it because of its errors and then had to reintroduce it to the House. Worse Government delays followed. After a searching Committee examination by my hon. Friends, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), when at no time did the Government propose a timetable, they then took the Bill away, kept it hidden from view of the House for three months, from March to June of this year, and then made huge amendments on Report.
At no time have Opposition Members artificially delayed the Bill, although we are implacably opposed to its deeply offensive and largely irrelevant proposals. In the House of Lords 270 further amendments covering 62 pages, were added, again largely by Ministers. The responsibility for the delays to this Bill lie directly with the Secretary of State for the Environment, not with this House, and certainly not with the Opposition. At no time in our interrogation of Ministers have they felt justified until now in asking the House to impose a guillotine.
Ministers admitted weaknesses, errors and confusions by the score in their own legislation. That is certainly the track record of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). Deeply unhappy about the Bill that he was asked to take through Committee, he promised change after change after change. He was subsequently pushed out of the way by the Secretary of State in a fit of pique. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was then rolled

into view to rescue the Secretary of State and his proposals. She has been contemptuously and abruptly dismissed as well. Still the Secretary of State staggers on with a fanaticism that belies reason and reality in housing policy. The latest hapless victim of the right hon. Gentleman's obsessions, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), seems as confused about the Bill's intentions as were his predecessors. That was obvious from his attempt to reply to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith on Wednesday.
Faced with this chronology of political confusion and administrative bungling, how dare any Conservative Member say that the Opposition are responsible for the time taken to get the Bill through the House? It is the responsibility of Ministers. Even on Wednesday, it was the Government who ran away from the debate. No Opposition Member wanted to pack up the discussions on proposals that included ballot-rigging and distressing and arbitrary powers over people's homes and neighbourhoods. The Government want to rush the Bill back to the other place without providing an opportunity to debate many amendments on matters of substance. We say no to that, and our opposition to it is undiminished.
We have heard a great deal of ranting and raging from Conservative Members about empty properties. Why did we not hear a word about the 5·9 per cent. of Government properties standing empty—the highest percentage of all? Why did we not hear about the one in five Metropolitan police houses that are standing empty? Why was there no mention of the 70 per cent. cut in real terms in housing investment programmes? We heard a great deal from Conservative Members about some local authorities. Why did we not hear that this Government, with hon. Members' support, have cut Camden's housing investment by more than £600 million, Brent's by £280 million, Manchester's by more than £500 million and Liverpool's by more than £260 million?
We heard, with contempt, Conservative Members suggest that people with rent arrears have no problems. Why did we not hear about the eight cuts in housing benefit in eight years? Why did we not hear about that elderly lady—the 65-year-old diabetic—who lost £10·80 a week in April because of the latest cut in housing benfit? That reduced her income, after rent, to £35 a week. Does none of that make any difference to people's ability to meet their rent requirements? Does no Conservative Member ever think about that when he discusses housing problems?
The Bill does not begin to address the real problems in housing policy in Britain. It offers little comfort to those in overcrowded and unfit houses and those on ever-lengthening waiting lists. It offers no hope to the homeless. My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to say that the Bill heralds the return of Rachmanism, the dread of harassment, rent extortion and, probably, criminal activities in the housing market.
As to the conduct of the Bill's passage through the House, as an example of public administration it stinks. The Secretary of State has throughout displayed an arrogant contempt for the parliamentary process. Even now, with only a few hours of parliamentary time left, he and the Cabinet assume that the other place will accept this disgraceful legislation without any further change or delay. I hope that it will not.
The Housing Bill is offensive in its provisions. It has been brought to within a single working day of defeat in this House, and we certainly make no apology for that.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): When it comes to the right to reply to hon. Members' questions, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) leaves me too little time. The Bill has had 250 hours spent on it so far—more than 123 hours in Commons Committee, more than 43 hours on Commons Report, more than 33 hours in Lords Committee and more than 21 hours on Lords Report before it has even reached Commons consideration. There have been hours of painstaking debate on all the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), then Minister for Housing and Planning, agreed to make many amendments, but, having been put down, they are a source not of thanks but of complaint from the Opposition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) so rightly pointed out.
Hitherto, no timetable has been applied to the Bill. Twice the Opposition have tried to abuse that freedom of debate—first on Commons Report and then again last Wednesday. We know the signs well. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) delivers his sermon at the start of each debate. Then the heavy mob—the hon Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—assemble behind him. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) comes in like a cuckoo-clock every quarter hour, saying "Rachman" on one and "Hoogstraten" on the other—and he did it again this morning. There then comes a further reading of the speech from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Meanwhile the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—the choreographer of this ballet with which we have all become so bored—flits from Front Bench to Back Bench and then again from back to front and we hear rumours of plans to bus in new recruits at 6 o'clock in the morning. The act is repeated at two-hour intervals throughout the night, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hammersmith who, innocent and ignorant of all this—the Opposition Chief Whip is in bed, of course—delivers his sermon at two-hourly intervals without any change or any relevance to the debate.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has referred to this as a total mess, and indeed it is—a total mess on the part of the hon. Gentleman, the Opposition Chief Whip and all those who have tried to disrupt the proper democratic processes. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Labour party has revealed its passionate defence of the council house system and all that is rotten and wrong in that system. Labour Members ignore all the defects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) correctly pointed out, they ignore the mounting rent arrears and the growing number of vacancies leading to increased problems of homelessness, especially in a capital dominated by big Labour boroughs. For Labour Members, the only solution to their own inefficiency is to build more council houses. They ignore the importance of the tenant, the importance of choice and the importance of having some competition among landlords to woo the favours of tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope)

said in his excellent speech, what we are seeking to do in the Bill is to transfer power in housing from inefficient Labour councils to the people—to give people more choice and the opportunity to live a decent life which has been denied by the Labour party for so many years in the boroughs that it runs.
The need for the Bill is urgent. It has been held up by the Labour party for doctrinaire reasons. I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bring these undignified proceedings—this total mess that the Opposition have tried to create— to an end so that the benefits which will flow from the Bill may start from today.

Question put:

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Harry Cohen: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am breathless, having run across from St. Stephen's House where we cannot hear the Division bell—my secretary's office is in St. Stephen's House—and, therefore, I have been denied the opportunity to vote on the guillotine motion. Many of my constituents are affected by the Bill and I at least want an opportunity to vote. It is scandalous that they have done repair work in St. Stephen's House, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Because of the obvious urgency, I should be grateful if the Serjeant at Arms would arrange an immediate inquiry.

Mr. Cohen: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you open the doors briefly to allow me to cast my vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As soon as I obtain the information, I shall advise the House.

The House having divided: Ayes 303, Noes 176.

Division No. 490]
[12.34 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dunn, Bob
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Gardiner, George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Crowther, Stan


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashdown, Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Fearn, Ronald


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J.
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Callaghan, Jim
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter






Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, William


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, Stuart
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Geraint
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richardson, Jo


Illsley, Eric
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Joan


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ron
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Livsey, Richard
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Wall, Pat


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliott
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bills:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) The proceedings on further consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), as applied by paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings), shall apply to the proceedings on each of the Bills.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either of the Bills shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the proceedings on either of the Bills are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) a period equal to the duration of the business taken

under that paragraph shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on each of the Bills are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) If the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings on either of the Bills are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments to the Bill in question as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of I he Crown to a Lords Amendment to that Bill and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment to that Bill;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments to that Bill designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments to that Bill;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments to the Bill in question Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question that all other Amendments to that Bill moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment he made.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and


(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either of the Bills, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Interpretation

6. In this Order 'the Bills' means the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill.

Orders of the Day — School Boards (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6

PROCEEDINGS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 10, at end insert
and any legal proceedings or other document to be served on a Board shall be deemed to have been duly served if served at the school on the Clerk or, if no Clerk has been appointed, on the chairman or vice-chairman.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I want the Minister to respond to the amendments to clause 6 and perhaps he will, with the leave of the House, also address himself to amendment No. 5 and say why a decision was made to leave out "third" and insert "half".
It will also be helpful if the Minister will explain the role of the clerk. Even at this late stage, there is considerable ambiguity about that. Will it be possible, for example, for a teacher to serve as a school board clerk? If so, what problems does the Minister think might be associated with that event? At other stages teachers have been excluded from being holders of offices on the board, but it now seems that permission will be given for a teacher to serve as a clerk.
There is a further ambiguity. Clause 6 states that the school board shall appoint a clerk. Can that person be an employee of the regional council, and what will be the relationship between the council and its own employee in such a case? In Committee the Minister believed that volunteers could be used to undertake fairly onerous duties.
The relationship of the clerk to the school board remains vague. There is a possibility that a member of the board will also be the clerk to the board and have certain duties deputed to him or her. In other circumstances the clerk might not be a member of the board. It is unusual for a clerk to be a voting member, so some strange relationships could be created.
My final point is on amendment No. 7, which is really very odd. It means that the minutes of a meeting can be composed and approved at the same meeting. We are all aware that normal practice means that minutes of a board meeting are written and delivered to the next meeting of the board. What aspect of amendment No. 7 commended itself to the Minister to allow the highly unusual position where minutes might be written at a board meeting and approved at the same meeting? Perhaps the Minister can see in the amendment some virtue to which I am blind.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by referring to amendment No. 5 which has


been agreed by the House. It will increase the membership of non-board members on sub-committees from one third to one half. The proposal was made by the director of education in Dumfries and Galloway as the result of its splendid experiment in pilot school boards. The director of education suggested that the change should be made especially in respect of community schools, where larger numbers of outside people might be required.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the role of the clerk. As he will recall, we had a long discussion in Committee on the clerk's role. The clerk's role is to serve the board and to take minutes. That role will be determined by the board itself.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a teacher could be the clerk. I recall that Opposition Members were keen to argue in Committee that we should require the clerk to be a local authority employee. We decided that we should leave discretion in that matter to the boards. Therefore, the board may appoint a teacher or anyone else as clerk.
I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman described amendment No. 7 as odd, because a very similar amendment was tabled by the Opposition in another place. Amendment No. 7 meets the concern expressed by Opposition Members and others that, without authentication, board minutes and those of committees might be open to challenge.

Sir Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am somewhat surprised that there is no education spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. That is strange when we are discussing a major Scottish Bill. Perhaps the spokesman is absent because of the disarray after last night's disaster in Glasgow.
With regard to amendments on procedure, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have run a pilot scheme in Dumfries and Galloway. The scheme has been very satisfactory and issues of procedure have not arisen. The election of members, the arrangements for clerks, and other procedures have all worked satisfactorily. That shows that the amendments tabled in another place are worth while and fit in very well with the recommendations made by the Scottish Education Department to Dumfries and Galloway. The pilot scheme was excellent and it will help with the establishment of school boards later next year.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 12

RELATIONS BETWEEN BOARDS AND PARENTS

Lords amendment, No. 10, in page 7, line 42, after "(a)" insert
as often as appears to them to be necessary but, in any event—

(i) not more than 12 months after their establishment, and
(ii) at intervals of not more than 12 months after the first such report,

make a"

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

1 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am curious about the words:
not more than 12 months after their establishment, and … at intervals of not more than 12 months after the first such report".
Is it really envisaged that the school board will promote contact by reporting to parents at no shorter intervals than 12 months'? What kind of contact is that? It is almost like the contact that the Tories have with Scotland as a whole —the annual visitation as they float in, are rejected and float out again. I know that the Tories did very badly last night, with only a 7 per cent. vote, but at least they managed to save their deposit, on which they should be congratulated. If they are to leave such a long period between compulsory discussions, it will be a shame if they do not at least learn the lessons of last night, pay sonic attention to the people of Scotland and recognise that they regard the Bill as having been foisted on them by No. 10 and its Scottish minions on the Front Bench.
The Bill is not wanted in Scotland, and one of the reasons is the delay before a full report is given to the people. I hope that we at least will have our report from the Front Bench so that we can make our final decision.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I think that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is chancing his arm somewhat in referring to last night's by-election. It must be the first by-election in history in which the protest voters have been against the Opposition rather than the Government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 7 per cent.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems that in this instance yesterday and yesterday creeps in this petty pace from day to day. I hope that hon. Members will stick to today's business.

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps I could address my remarks to tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman asked why there was provision for reports to be made only every 12 months. If he reads the Bill, he will find that clause 13 provides for parents to demand a meeting at any time. He will also find that boards have a specific duty to promote contact with parents, and to establish parent and parent-teacher associations. The Bill provides for a minimum requirement to report on a regular basis, which we resisted in Committee, but we were pressed by the Opposition to include the provision. We would, however, expect boards to report on a regular basis as part of their wider duties. To help the Opposition in Scotland—and they are certainly in need of help at present—we were prepared to accept an amendment along these lines.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 21 agreed to.

Housing Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 50 agreed to.

Clause 50

HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANTS

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 38, line 20, leave out "Corporation" and insert
Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 52, 54 to 58, 60 and 64 to 71.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments are essentially of a technical nature. Their main purpose is to ensure the proper application of part II of the Bill to Scottish Homes. That is done by deleting the grant-making powers contained in clauses 50 and 51 for Scottish Homes because that body has its own grant-making powers under section 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill 1988.
The function of the Housing Corporation in Scotland is being taken over by Scottish Homes. Scottish Homes is being given powers separately to do that. Therefore, the amendments make for both consistency and clarity. The matter is dealt with in this Bill because housing association legislation has been United Kingdom legislation in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 52 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 38, line 34, at end insert—

"(3A) On such terms is it may, with the appropriate approval, specify, the Corporation may appoint a local housing authority which is willing to do so to act as its agent in connection with the assessment and payment of grant under this section; and, where such an appointment is made, the local housing authority shall act as such an agent in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(3B) In subsection (3A) above, "the appropriate approval" means the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 61 to 63.

Mr. Trippier: These amendments deal with aspects of the grant regime for housing associations established by the terms of the Bill and make provision for transitional arrangements as the Bill comes into operation. The House will recall that we debated the role of local authorities in relation to housing association projects both in Committee and on Report. The then Minister for Housing was able to tell the House on 13 June that, as announced a little earlier, the Government had decided to maintain the present system under which local authorities were able to sponsor housing association projects.
Under the Bill it will be for the Housing Corporation to pay grants on such projects and the Bill as it stands is quite adequate to enable that to be done. The House was right to reject an amendment on Report that sought unnecessarily to make explicit provision for grants to be paid on schemes sponsored by local authorities.
While the Bill was in the other place, however, we considered whether there were any useful provisions that could facilitate the local authority funding the process. Under the current legislation where housing grant is paid by the Secretary of State, he is empowered by section 49(5) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 to appoint a local housing authority to act as his agent in respect of paying the grant. We had dropped that provision from the Bill because at the time that the Bill was introduced it was not intended that local authorities should be able to continue their sponsorship role. However, as that position has now changed, we think that it is only right to reintroduce a provision for local authorities to act as agents. I am certain that Opposition Members will welcome that provision.
Lords amendment No. 53 provides that where a local authority is willing to take on this role it is empowered to act as the Housing Corporation's agent in connection with assessing and paying capital grant. It means that the local authority, acting under the general rules of the Housing Corporation, will be able to assess how much grant a scheme that it has funded is entitled to receive.
Lords amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63 are minor and ensure smooth transition to the financial regime for housing associations established by the Bill as opposed to that established by the Housing Associations Act 1985 in areas where a commencement order would be inappropriate.
Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are necessary to ensure that the arrangements for dealing with surplus rental income can operate in relation to accounting periods which straddle the commencement date. Lords amendment No. 63 was introduced to give the Secretary of State the authority to delegate to the Housing Corporation after enactment of the Bill work which remains under the arrangements of the 1985 Act regarding revenue grants and the recoupment of surplus income.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 71 agreed to.

Clause 60

HOUSING ACTION TRUST AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 72, in page 46, line 19, after "order" insert
after the conduct of a ballot as specified in section 61(2) below, (and subject to the provisions of that subsection)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.

Lords amendment No. 73.

Government motion (b) to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Government amendments (c) to (e) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the Lords that there should be a ballot. That is the subject of this debate.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: No. Let me get started.
I accept the spirit of the Lords amendment but, as I shall explain, I differ with them on the means by which a ballot should be delivered.
The purpose of housing action trusts is to put right what the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) were complaining about earlier—the estates of dilapidation and severe disrepair. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, they have a problem. The problem may be the result of bad design leading to dirt and graffiti, a high level of crime, high vacancy rates, high rent arrears and wretched living conditions in many areas of the worst council housing in the country. We all know of such areas because Opposition Members have for many years drawn attention to them and the need for more help for the worst public housing.
I believe that it is right that we should give people who live in such conditions the opportunity to have more choice and diversity and to have repairs and improvements done to their homes. There should be a new way in which to improve the worst estates. One can oppose such a policy only because tenants want to live in such conditions, which I cannot believe possible, or because tenants have been misinformed about what a HAT will do and what will happen after HATs have been established.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Secretary of State realise how much anger he creates among the residents of such estates when he describes them in that way? Many of the estates that have been chosen do not fit his description. One, in Sunderland, has had about three years of work done on it. The work is still being carried out and is well advanced.
It is to a high standard and there is a very low level of crime, graffiti and vandalism. That is true of almost all the selected estates. The truth is that the Secretary of State has chosen areas that he can sell off, not the worst areas.

Mr. Ridley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have seen all the areas myself. I have seen what the vacancy rate is, crime records held by the police and many other bits of information—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have a lot to say. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but after that I would prefer to get on with what I have to say.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. We all know that, thanks to him, we are short of time. Although we do not agree with the principle, why did not the Secretary of State discuss the matter with the local authorities and the tenants before making his designation? Then he could have been sure of getting it right and dealing with those areas with the worst

problems. He has made no attempt to do that. He has designated the areas that he chose to suit his own ideological purposes.

Mr. Ridley: I do not understand how this measure could conceivably benefit any ideological purposes. Opposition Members have been demanding action on the worst council estates in the country. The worst estates were to be determined by the consultants' report, which I have not yet received.
Opposition Members and the councils in their areas have gone in for a campaign of gross misinformation about what HATs will mean. Sandwell NALGO has been saying:
The security of every tenant will change if a HAT is allowed to take over.".
That is quite untrue. The establishment of a HAT will make no difference to tenants' status rights or rent. Lambeth NALGO has been telling people:
The estates will most likely he sold to a private company whose only interest will be making a profit".
In Sandwell tenants were told:
… under private landlords you will see your rents soar …
None of that is true. It is a gross misrepresentation. We have stated quite categorically and made it a statutory requirement in the Bill that HATs may transfer property only back to the councils or to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. Those landlords will be required to demonstrate stability, viability and a commitment to the long-term provision of rented housing at rents within reach of those in lower-paid jobs. Rents will be frozen in advance of improvements and thereafter will rise at the rate of council rents.
Another case from Sunderland involved scare stories that home owners who bought their houses under the right to buy would have them compulsorily repurchased to make way for redevelopers. That is a quite disgraceful claim; it is not remotely true.
Another disgraceful claim was that HATs could lead to discrimination and harassment. That has absolutely no basis in fact and it is belied by the statutory requirements for HATs to promote racial equality, to prevent sexual discrimination and to pay special attention to the needs of disabled people. At the end of the period of the HAT—which we hope will be soon—tenants can opt for the right to buy, to form a tenants co-operative with help from the Housing Corporation, to have their property transferred to a housing association, to go to an approved private landlord—I emphasise the word "approved"—or to go back to the council. We have undertaken to give additional borrowing approvals to councils so that, if they wish and if the tenants wish, they can buy back the property at the end of the period. That is the deal we have offered, but the misinformation that has been prevalent throughout the affair has obscured that deal and focused on the ballot.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way in a moment.
Ministers and I have been round all the HATs and have listened to what the people have said, except on the occasion when the tenants walked out, to which I shall refer soon. We have heard wildly exaggerated fears that have been sown in their minds, and the absence of a ballot was the one clear point to unite opposition. I came to the


view that real arguments were impossible to get across if the ballot question was obscured. Let there be a ballot. I am proposing that there should be a ballot. Then there will be only one issue. Which is more important—the political opposition of the Labour party, or greatly improved living conditions for the people in those areas?
There is no other way in which large sums of money can be targeted on especially deserving estates. The current capital expenditure system means that receipts lie where they fall and are not available in other areas. I cannot distribute capital allocations taking account of where there are no receipts and the need for the local authority to spend. That is one reason why we shall propose a change to the present capital control system. But we have proposed Estate Action help. The hon. Member for Warley, East was waving a copy of its report, which shows that funds will be targeted on an estate in his constituency. Although the funds for Estate Action will be increased from £140 million this year to £190 million next year, such allocations will have to go round estates in about 100 local authorities and could not be used to concentrate funds only in some local authority areas.
The problems of the worst council estates and the most rundown areas remain to be resolved in any way that we can find. I addressed the problem fairly and squarely—there is no other way of doing it—by bringing to the House a proposal that we should have the power to designate an area as a housing action trust and to concentrate resources in that area. The provision for the next few years is£ 192 million. But the Opposition obstruct, delay and cause scaremongering, and when we give them the very thing that seemed to be preventing people from accepting the idea they accuse the Government of blackmail and of whatever excuse comes to mind next. "Blackmail" means extortion of money; it means hush money. It does not fit the picture of a Government openly offering £192 million during the next three years to six local authorities and their tenants.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State tell the House and those tenants why, if he has decided that the estates need repair and improvement—which they do—he is unwilling to offer the money on the basis of a partnership agreement with the local authority in each case, with satisfactory controls by his officials? Then the worst estates could be improved, but on the basis of agreement as opposed to disagreement.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I explained how the capital allocation system works and said that I could not achieve those aims with the present instruments. I cannot give excessive capital allocations to one authority without removing them from another. That is why I propose this special device, which the hon. Gentleman supports in principle. We must consider the co-operation of the local authority. If the tenants and the local authority do not want a housing action trust, under the amendment that I propose they will not have one. There will be no housing action trust where there is no co-operation.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with the Secretary of State that there has been misinformation. A little while ago he talked

about what would happen when housing action trusts came to an end. Has he seen the pamphlet issued by his Department entitled "Housing Action Trusts"? It states:
If you went back to the local authority you would remain a secure tenant. If you transferred to a housing association or other landlord, you would have a new form of tenancy, an assured tenancy, which would give you broadly the same security of tenure as you have now".
Surely that statement is incorrect, because, if it were the same, the assured tenancy would not be necessary as it would be secure. Surely that is just as much misinformation as anything that the right hon. Gentleman accuses me or my hon. Friends of creating.

Mr. Ridley: No, it is not true. The new housing association assured tenancy that is in this Bill is not identical—[Interruption.] No, I said that the housing association assured tenancy is not the same as the present secure tenancy that a council offers. That is why I said that it is not. I did not say that it was the same. I said in the pamphlet that the hon. Gentleman has, that they were broadly similar in terms of security.

Mr. Spearing: Or other landlords.

Mr. Ridley: If it is another landlord, not a housing association, the hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that the tenants charter requirements will be binding, contractual and supervised by the Housing Corporation, so that no landlord who has not signed up to the same principles as are involved in housing association secure tenancies will be allowed to take over from a HAT, either when a HAT is dissolved or on resale later, after they have acquired housing from a HAT and wish to sell it. The conditions are binding for all time. That is justification of what I said to the hon. Gentleman.
Only two nights ago, before we got to the amendment —I have no complaint about that—the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) expressed concern on behalf of Lambeth tenants living in bad housing. I agree that there is much bad housing in Lambeth. The hon. Gentleman said that I am bribing them to vote for a HAT. Perhaps I should remind him of the meeting that he attended with the council leaders in my office on 27 July. After 15 minutes, the tenants walked out, with the council representatives following them. They did so, they said, because unless they were given a ballot they were not interested in talking to me or to anyone else about a HAT. But I listened, and I am now offering them a ballot. I have done exactly what they asked and what the hon. Gentleman said that I should do. He now says that I am contriving an argument and that I am bribing them or denying them resources. That is the extent of the political manipulation and misinformation to which the hon. Gentleman has stooped.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Secretary of State tell me why, at Question Time last Wednesday week, he said that they should not have a ballot? When did he change his mind? Is it not true that, according to the briefings to the newspapers last Monday, it was made quite clear that, if people did not vote for a HAT, they would not have access to the £192 million? Is that confirmed today? Does it amount to a form of bribery?

Mr. Ridley: I announce decisions when they have been taken and agreed by my colleagues. On Wednesday last week, those decisions had not been agreed by my colleagues. As soon as they were agreed by my colleagues,


I announced them. I had to announce them because the amendment had to be tabled on Monday. It seemed to be reasonable at least to inform the public on Sunday rather than wait for them to read the amendments on Monday morning. I gave the information as quickly as I could.
I wonder whether Opposition Members should consider whether I am trying or they are trying to deny tenants the£ 192 million that I am making available for HATs. Perhaps they have forgotten their own words.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene. Let me quote his own words in Standing Committee. He said:
we do not want to be accused of suggesting to local authorities, once the Government have declared housing action trusts, that they should not co-operate with the Government and take as much of the Government's resources as possible through housing action trusts to encourage the improvement and upgrading of estates.
If there are limited resources and the Government are to make them available only to areas where housing action trusts are declared, or provide limited resources elsewhere and extra resources to housing action trusts, no local authority in its right mind would turn that money away or refuse to co-operate to obtain the money for the tenants' benefit.

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished the quote.

Mr. Roberts: The Secretary of State has not finished the quote—that is the trouble. He is quoting selectively. I went on to say that we do not believe that this is the way to make the money available. We believe it should be given to the local authorities. The local authorities should be given resources because they could do the job if they were given them.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the finality of those statements and, if he tries to do so, I shall quote a third passage from his speech. After saying that he did not like the idea, the hon. Gentleman said:
We are not saying, however, that if the Bill is enacted and housing action trusts are introduced, local authorities should not try to make them work and use the extra resources available for the tenants' benefit."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 February 1988; c. 754–55.]
It seems impossible that the Bill will become law and that it will contain the HAT proposal. Labour Members should reconsider whether it is wise to continue to make this subject a political football when the interests of the very people whom they purport to represent and whom they seek to help are being jeopardised by they campaign of misinformation and the totally false information that they are giving.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West began his speech by saying that he acknowledged that there was a problem. He went on to say that he wanted to help tenants but he then talked in Battle of Britain terms about how he hoped that they would have a victory in defeating the housing action trust. That is not in the interests of the tenants. That is putting politics before the interests of his constituency. He made the most disgraceful blatant plea that the steamed-up anger of the tenants, which he has promoted, should be allowed to prevail over their own interests.

Mr. Peter Archer: I was merely seeking to report to the right hon. Gentleman what I had not had the opportunity of reporting in any other way—what the tenants themselves are saying. I said that I am perfectly happy to leave the decision to the tenants; that is exactly what I want.

Mr. Ridley: Well, we agree on the last point. We are leaving the decision to the tenants. That is no longer a contentious issue. Let me take this a stage further for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If we are now leaving the decision to the tenants, and if that money is available in my public expenditure line—the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see that it is—what will he advise his tenants? Will he advise them that they should seek to make use of and take advantage of that facility? If not, I must advise him that, if we do not find an estate which is in a bad condition and which is willing to accept a housing action trust, I have no alternative but to return that money to the Treasury because it is in a certain line and allocated for a certain purpose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackmail."] There is no way in which that money could otherwise be made available—

Mr. David Winnick: That is blackmail.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) calls that blackmail, he does not know what the word "blackmail" means in this case. It is extraordinary that year after year he says that there is a need for more expenditure for the worst council estates, but when the money if offered he tries to persuade tenants not to accept it. Then when they do not receive it, he calls that blackmail.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Ridley: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to learn about this.
We should give the tenants a vote, and the best way of arranging that is that the majority of those who vote should prevail. It is a yes or no question.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has put his name to a motion stating that he supported the Lords amendment in the form in which it was drafted. I know that he has since removed it, but it was a mistake for him to put his name to it in the first place if, in the light of what he said earlier —

Mr. Simon Hughes: It has not been removed. The preferred voting system for both HATs and tenants' choice is one that ensures that more than half of those eligible to vote do so and that there is then a majority in favour. That is what the other place achieved for HATs, but, sadly, it missed it for tenants' choice by just two votes. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted that for HATs and, through an amendment, for tenants' choice, we should have been a great deal happier.

Mr. Ridley: The Lords amendment, with which we are suggesting the House disagrees, provides for a majority of the tenants eligible to vote, not for a majority of the tenants who actually vote. What the hon. Gentleman has said conflicts with that. He is trying to have it both ways.
I commend the system of voting that the Government have proposed. I have had to redraft some of the Lords amendments for technical reasons, and I shall explain them if it is the wish of the House. The fairest way to carry out a ballot is by majority of those who vote.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief speeches from Members on both sides of the House because of the prevailing circumstances. In deciding who shall catch my eye, I shall take into account the length and frequency of interventions.

Dr. Cunningham: The House, those listening to the debate and those reporting it could be forgiven for overlooking the fact that we have just heard a speech from a Secretary of State who has been a member of successive Administrations who have, as a deliberate and systematic act of policy, reduced housing investment programmes, in real terms, by less than 70 per cent. That underlying fact —no accident, but a deliberate and regular act of policy —lies at the heart of many, although not all, of the housing problems that the right hon. Gentleman now says he so urgently wants to address and correct. It is an act of the greatest hypocrisy for the Government to say that they have at heart the best interests of those who have suffered those cuts, after almost 10 years of deliberately disabling the ability of local authorities, elected by those people, to deal with housing, neighbourhood and community problems.
We simply cannot stomach that from the right hon. Gentleman without saying that it stinks of hypocrisy to say that the Government are concerned about the very problems for which they are fundamentally responsible. Whichever way the right hon. Gentleman comes at the issue, HATs are a central Government imposition on people, their homes and their neighbourhoods. It is yet another example of the Government's manic determination to circumvent elected local authorities. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is no element of coercion. It is coercion to say that unless people do what he wants them to do, their housing problems will be left unattended and no money will be made available. Nothing could be plainer than that.
I certainly welcome the Secretary of State's belated recognition of and conversion to the idea that tenants actually have some rights. We said at the outset that people should have been consulted and that they should have the right to vote. I can imagine the reaction in parts of Mayfair, Park lane or even Cirencester and Tewkesbury in the Cotswolds if a Labour Government had said, "We shall take action in Parliament to change the tenure of your homes and we shall not consult you about it." There would have been a riot. Indeed, it is amazing that those who will be affected by HATs have been so tolerant.
It has taken a year for the message to sink in. Even now, although the right hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts the spirit of the Lords amendment, he is nevertheless trying to fiddle even that.

Mr. Ridley: indicated dissent.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I shall come to the evidence in a moment.
When I said earlier that the right hon. Gentleman's and the Prime Minister's ideology was the driving force behind the proposals, he denied it. Let us examine that denial. In common with many other people, the Opposition now have the advantage—despite the Government's attempts to deny it both to us and to the people affected—of the report by the property investment company Peat, Marwick, McLintock. On page 13a the report states:

HATs—The desired end result drives the means of achieving the result",
and the goal is spelt out unequivocally as
Successful transfer to the private sector".
The whole object of the exercise is to transfer the properties to the private sector whether the tenants like it or not, and it is utterly dishonest for any Minister to pretend otherwise. It was a remarkable act of candour for the Secretary of State to say that everything was explained by the consultants' report, but the trick was that he never intended us or the tenants to see the report. [Horn. MEMBERS: "How did they get it?"] I do not know how they got it, but I am very glad that they did, because another feature that I cannot stand about the Secretary of State and the Government is the way in which they continually come to Parliament with legislation but deny evidence about it to the House and to the people affected. If the right hon. Gentleman's trickery is exposed, that is ultimately so much the better even for him, not to mention the House of Commons and the tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) recently asked what was the cost to the taxpayer of the consultants' reports. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), replied:
The costs of these consultancy studies, which are still under way, are commercially confidential."— [Official report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 685.]
The Comptroller and Auditor General may have something to say about that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will continue to pursue the matter because she is absolutely right to seek to put on record the cost to the taxpayer of the ideological nonsense being perpetrated by the Government at the taxpayers' expense.
I therefore have to say, as gently as I can, that we simply do not believe what the Secretary of State has said to the House today.
We welcome the Lords amendment because it strengthens the tenants' position. If the Secretary of State had been consistent and said from the outset that tenants in proposed housing action trusts could have a vote and that in both that situation and in the pick-a-landlord scheme the vote would be on the basis of a simple majority, everyone would have been content, but that is not what he is proposing. Yet again, he is being deliberately inconsistent. The difference between the Lords amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's counterproposals is extremely important. The Lords amendment guarantees that a ballot will be held. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment does not give that unequivocal guarantee.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, it does.

Dr. Cunningham: The Government amendment gives the Secretary of State all the choices. He will decide whether a ballot is appropriate. He chooses whether to hire an independent body to carry out the ballot, and he chooses the independent body. If the Secretary of State decides against an independent body, he arranges for a ballot to be conducted in the way that he thinks best.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment.
1.45 pm
There are no rights and guarantees for tenants in the Secretary of State making all these decisions. The right hon. Gentleman may want to intervene to say what he will


write into the Bill. Words spoken in the House in debates are not worth the paper on which they are written in respect of giving people fundamental rights. Repeatedly, Ministers in this and previous Thatcher Administrations have given commitments in the House which subsequently have been cynically and deliberately disregarded. [Interruption.] I do not know what the Under-Secretary of State is laughing at. We do not find any of this funny. If the Secretary of State wants to say that he will write into the Bill an unequivocal guarantee of a ballot, that is fine. If he is just going to say that that is his intention, that is certainly unacceptable.

Mr. Ridley: I agree that all this bumf about which the hon. Gentleman complains is worth nothing, particularly if it is not read. Let me read the amendment to the hon. Gentleman:
no order may be made under section 60(1) above in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.
That is unequivocal, clear and—

Dr. Cunningham: What does it mean?

Mr. Ridley: It means "vote for." It says "approved." If one votes against it, that is not approving. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not have to be taken through that point. If that is what he thinks, he has not left his private school.

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State will explain why they should say that the Secretary of State decides whether a ballot is appropriate. Why should that caveat be in the legislation? Is the Secretary of State saying that that will be removed? Will he decide whether a ballot is appropriate? Will there be a ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: In respect of declaring housing action trusts, the governing subsection in clause 61 is subsection (2). I have quoted it once and I shall quote it again:
no order may he made … in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.

Mr. Spearing: Not by ballot.

Mr. Ridley: By ballot. The clause goes on to describe how it is to be done. It could be a ballot or a poll. The difference is that one is postal and the other is not. There are two possibilities: it could be organised directly by my officials or I have the power to delegate it to the Electoral Reform Society. I am happy to tell the House that the Electoral Reform Society has agreed to operate these ballots, so I am able to delegate this function to it.

Dr. Cunningham: I still say that, as written, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are ambiguous. It is no good his saying that we should stop saying that. Our interpretation of and advice on what he proposes is that, unlike the Lords amendment, which he seeks to change, his proposals are ambiguous. That is a strong point.
In earlier exchanges, the Secretary of State failed to explain why the areas that he has chosen were so designated. We have argued that there are areas of far greater need, with much greater problems and difficulties, than those designated for his housing action trusts. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to help the people

facing the worst problems, why has Hulme in Manchester been ignored.? Why have areas of deck-access housing not been included in HATs?
People may think that HATs are well named. There will probably be little action and there is little trust of them among the people who will be affected. The Secretary of State's arguments do not wash. He has chosen areas for designation that he knows will suit his ideological purposes, which are spelt out in the report to which I have already referred. The whole sorry story is one of an attempt to mislead not only hon. Members but the people who will be affected, of prevaricating before appearing —but only appearing— to consent to a ballot in every case and of trying to coerce people in the direction that the Government want them to take by saying, "If you do not support us, no money will be spent on your housing difficulties." It is all too typical of the Government's housing policies, which owe everything to dogma and ideology but nothing to solving housing problems.

Mr. Peter Shore: Although there are some a biguities in the clause and amendment that the Secretary of State has not explained, the most remarkable feature of the debate was his statement, "I agree that there shall be a ballot." That is a remarkable reversal of the position that he had so adamantly taken and that he and his junior Ministers had supported in debate in the House and in the House of Lords for a long time.
My constituency contains no fewer than six HATs. About 2,500 families in Tower Hamlets are to be taken from the control of the local authorities and placed under the jurisdiction and powers of HATs. The Under-Secretary visited York hall in my borough on 17 October 1988 to explain why the Government would reject the Lords amendment. He said that there was no chance of balanced and informed opinion if tenants were consulted about whether they wanted a HAT. That was an extremely arrogant statement. I have much confidence in the ability of tenants in my borough to decide sensibly what is in their interests, and, even though it has come late in the day. I welcome the Secretary of State's change of heart or intention.
I should, however, like to make one or two further points in my brief intervention. I support the view, which has already been articulated, that it is not true that a HAT must be established selectively to assist run-down estates. If the right hon. Gentleman had some administrative problems or difficulties in allocating additional funds to the estates action programme or the priority estates project, which I introduced some years ago, he could easily have dispelled them by seeking additional powers from the House.
Having cut two thirds of the allocation to local authorities for housing investment programmes, it is logical that what is left for local authorities to spend should be targeted in the best and most direct way possible. I do not object to that, but it should be done by the local authorities with the Department, not in spite of it, and properties should not be taken out of their control as landlords. The overall control of the modernisation of an estate obviously falls to the contractor carrying out the job.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Parliamentary


Under-Secretary of State came to York hall, he tried to tell tenants that there was too great a percentage of council housing in Tower Hamlets? The tenants made it clear to him that they needed more, not less, council housing so that they could be housed at affordable rents. When he told the tenants that they had been misinformed, the tenants' answer was that they were well informed and knew the difference between assured and secured tenancies, which the Under-Secretary of State did not. He tried to tell them that they were the same. The tenants also know that if their tenancies are eventually transferred to private landlords, they will face service charges and rents that they cannot afford. They know that money can be given in other ways.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is longer than a speech. I hope that she will resume her seat.

Ms. Gordon: It is not the worst estates but the best locations that have been chosen for HATs.

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for the additional points that she made about the meeting at York hall in Tower Hamlets.
If the Secretary of State has £192 million that he wishes to spend to deal with problems on the worst estates in the country, it is entirely within his power to discuss and agree with the local authorities which estates should be involved and then to allocate the money and see that it is spent for no other purpose. Therefore, the idea of HATs becomes irrelevant, unless there is an ulterior purpose. That ulterior purpose has been expressed and is rightly feared by tenants. It is to bring about the dissolution of local authority housing in a new way by assisting the transfer of such estates to private landlords and housing associations.
The new provision to assist local authorities to reacquire HATs came late in the day and is part of the retreat of the Secretary of State and his Ministers from the original purpose of HATs. Now he says, "They can opt to go back to the council at the end of the HAT period." At this late stage he has answered the question, "What if the council does not have the money to buy back at the new inflated price?" He said, "I will make special money available."
All those arrangements will need to be scrupulously and carefully examined if there is to be any serious change of opinion among the tenants affected by HATs. The tenants are concerned that they should continue to have the security that goes with secured tenancies and that they should have the right, which goes with democratically elected landlords, to be able to approach the responsible member of the council rather than have to negotiate with private or other landlords on the matter of contracts and law.

Mr. Fatchett: I shall speak specifically about Holton moor estate in my constituency, which has been designated as a housing action trust area, but what I say will apply to the Seacroft and Gipton estates, which have also been designated, which are in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
First, the Secretary of State's decision to designate Holton moor as a housing action trust area has caused a great deal of disquiet and upset. If the right hon.
Gentleman will study the criteria published by his Department, he will find that the essential characteristic of a housing trust area is that it is deemed to be run down. Tenants of Holton moor strongly object to their estate being described in that way. Earlier, the Secretary of State told the House that he had visited every HAT area. Unless he did so under the cloak of darkness, he never visited Holton moor in Leeds. If he had, he would have encountered a great deal of opposition to his Department's designation.
2 p.m.
Secondly, the Secretary of State takes no account of the effective action that has been taken over a number of years to improve Holton moor's housing and environment. There has been substantial local authority investment, which is already showing significant results. There is an agreement with a local housing association to take over a block of maisonettes there, which will in itself improve the area. The old West Yorkshire county council has improved the estate's overall environment. If the right hon. Gentleman visits Holton moor, he will find not a run-down estate but an area that is improving because of local authority intervention.
My final point is that although we welcome the ballot, we prefer the House of Lords definition. The ballot is not a measure of the Secretary of State's success or of his conversion; it is a major triumph for tenants of housing action trust areas throughout the country who have expressed their profound objections to his proposals. In one sense, I thank him for them, because he has brought to the tenants of Holton moor, Seacroft and Gipton an awareness of the points at issue that has never previously existed. As a result, there have been many tenants' meetings and campaigns.
When the Holton moor, Seacroft and Gipton ballots take place, the Secretary of State's proposals will be overwhelmingly defeated. If the tenants of those estates had seen the right hon. Gentleman's performance this morning, their conviction to rebuff his proposals would be stronger still. Blackmail of the kind hinted at by the Secretary of State today—"If you do not vote for my proposals, you will get no money for your estate"—will not work. People have courage and principles and they will not be browbeaten by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I wish to speak briefly but firmly in favour of housing action trusts. The majority of the cases that come to my advice surgery—and Opposition Members say that they share this experience —relate to housing matters. Most of the letters in my post bag also relate to housing inadequacies of one type or another suffered by my constituents in Dulwich and Southwark. They are increasingly experiencing homelessness and difficulty with obtaining transfers, with waiting lists, repairs, squatters, and from rent and rate debt amounting to above £30 million. Those tenants who do pay are subsidising those who do not. They increasingly encounter difficulties also in respect of lawlessness and violence on the estates on which they live.
In such circumstances, my right hon. Friend's proposals offer a positive and flexible way of dealing with those problems. It is inexplicable that Opposition Members implacably oppose an attempt to make improvements in an area that desperately needs it. In a


by-election that is currently under way in my constituency, there is a stage army of agitators running around and sowing the seeds of anxiety in the minds of tenants who are already trapped and imprisoned in their flats, with no opportunity of escape. They are being told that all of the proposals that we are debating today will be for the worse. Nothing is further from the truth.
For that reason I wholeheartedly support the idea of the two HATs proposed for Southwark. I offer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the opportunity to consider other estates in my constituency which might benefit from that treatment. However, I have one anxiety. After people in HAT areas have experienced the improvements that will flow from the trusts, they will want to be reassured that they will not be thrown willy nilly back on to the mercies of local authorities. They will want reassurances that their right to remain in some form of tenure other than that of council tenants will be safeguarded. They must be reassured that the range of tenures offered to tenants now will be available when HATs have reached maturity. With those reassurances, experience and time will prove that HATs are a major step forward in the provision of public sector housing. I give the concept of HATs my full support and I urge the House to do the same.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State for the Environment introduced the Housing Bill on 19 November last year. When he proposed housing action trusts he will recall that there was no provision for tenants to vote. There would be a vote in this place, but nothing else. Three hundred and fifty three days later, on Sunday television, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, Lord Caithness, announced that there would be a vote.
It says something about the Government's attitude to tenants that it took them to the last fortnight of the Session before they conceded that there should be a vote and that effectively to nationalise a change of tenure of housing for thousands of people should not have been contemplated without a vote.
Sunday's broadcast was unusual because the programme was followed by a press release from the Department of the Environment. That is not normal practice on a Sunday. The press release was unusual because it stated:
Government Announces a Ballot on HATS.
Lord Caithness said:
`When we announced our proposals for Housing Action Trusts in July, we said we would take account of local views in deciding whether to establish them. We have spent the past few months listening to what people have to say.
Local authorities and tenant groups have greeted the Government's proposals with suspicion and hostility. Mainly, they claim, because no ballot had been allowed for.
The Government cannot have been surprised at the response that their idea and visits received because, until a few days ago, tenants were told that they would have no vote. The introduction of the vote is a substantial improvement which I welcome.
My only remaining point relates to the kind of ballot, and the Secretary of State referred to that earlier. An amendment was tabled in another place that the ballot should express the wishes of a majority of those eligible to vote. The Government's concession on tenants' choice includes a proposal, agreed by the other place, that there should be a minimum turnout of 50 per cent. The Secretary of State was right—I stressed that point to the hon.
Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier—in his interpretation of the wording of his amendment which makes it clear that there must be a ballot or poll—there is no substantial difference between those two.

Mr. Ridley: One is a postal operation and the other involves sticking paper in a ballot box.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that a proper vote must take place. The Secretary of State has said that he will use one of the options to delegate the power to conduct the vote to an independent agency, namely the Electoral Reform Society. That is very welcome. However, it would have been better if the Secretary of State had accepted the amendment as drafted in another place, relating to the majority of those eligible to vote in favour, rather than the majority of those who turned out either in a postal or personal ballot. In the Government's own words, it is right to be suspicious of a major change if it is not certain that a real majority is in favour. Only the other day, the Government said of trade union reform:
A simple (or even a substantial) majority … might not actually be representative if many of those given entitlement to vote in the ballots did not actually do so.
Because we believe that a majority of eligible tenants as well as a majority in the overall vote should be in favour, we shall support the Lords amendments and oppose the Government's change, which, although an improvement on the original position, is still not as good as it could or should be.

Ms. Harriet Harman: My starting point is the interests of the tenants on the North Peckham and Gloucester grove estates, whom I was elected to represent. I also represent their concerns for their children and for future tenants who will need housing on such estates.
I take it ill that the Secretary of State, who represents a constituency in Gloucestershire, should tell me that he knows more about what is in the interests of the tenants on the estates that I have mentioned than they do—and more than me, the Member of Parliament elected to represent them. Perhaps I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that in Peckham there is a rare degree of unanimity on this issue. Tenants, the councillors elected by them, those who work in the housing service—many of whom are themselves tenants on those estates—and I, as their Member of Parliament, believe that the present position is not satisfactory. We feel that the quality of service that tenants receive is not good enough, and that the design of the buildings needs improvement.
No one, least of all the tenants, is complacent about the circumstances in which they currently live. But they all believe, as do I, that working with a council that is properly funded by central Government is the route out of the present problems. None of them wants housing action trusts, especially if they are imposed by a Government who think that a ballot should not be allowed because they will not be able to tell the difference between genuine information and misinformation. They are insulted by the idea that a housing action trust is to be imposed on them and the right to vote only dragged out in equivocal terms by a Minister who has been forced back by political reaction to his proposals.
All the tenants in the North Peckham and Gloucester grove estates know that it now takes longer to obtain Health Service treatment and benefits, and that those benefits are not enough to live on. They have seen the


deterioration of public transport in south-east London, on which they have to depend. They have no confidence in the solution that the Government wish to impose. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will accept the Lords amendment, which would allow tenants a watertight ballot and prevent his equivocations from being forced on them.

Mr. Fraser: I speak on behalf of the tenants of 3,000 dwellings on the Old Loughborough, New Loughborough and Angell Town estates in Brixton. Two of those estates belonged not to Lambeth council but to the GLC, which was forced to hand them over to Lambeth with insufficient investment to bring them up to date. The blame for the problems in two thirds of the properties, therefore, does not lie with Lambeth council.
The Secretary of State wholly misunderstands the decision by tenants about HATs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), I have encountered considerable dissatisfaction among tenants about the management, investment and design of their estates, and a wide measure of criticism about Lambeth's services and some of its housing officers. It would be silly for me to deny that.
I was genuinely surprised at the unanimity of the opposition to HATs. I had thought that some people, if not a majority, would speak in favour, seeing HATs as a solution to some of their problems in getting improvements carried out. If the Secretary of State thinks that NALGO has influenced tenants, he has made a great mistake. He has misjudged their political reaction, and he had better come to terms with that fact.
2.15 pm
A very happy development at a late stage in the Bill is that there is to be a ballot, but I want to turn to the more sinister side of it. Unless tenants vote for the local authority's loss of democratic accountability and for the privatisation of revitalised housing estates with a good future, the Secretary of State has made it clear that not a penny of additional resources will go to those who reject housing action trusts.
The Secretary of State has referred to estates that he has described as dilapidated and in a state of disrepair. If people choose to reject housing action trusts, there will be the same dilapidation and disrepair and the same frustration. Whenever there is rain, water will still come into the flats from the balconies and flood them. The heating will remain unsatisfactory. Water will leak between one flat and another across heavy concrete barriers. Asbestos will need to be removed and insulation will still be needed. Cavernous, unused garages will remain hostile and depressing. Those are the unsatisfactory features of some estates where murders, rape and many other serious offences have been far too common. Conditions will remain exactly the same, but treatment will depend not on the merit of the argument but on the outcome of the ballot. That is callous.
The Secretary of State objects to the terms "blackmail" and "bribery". I think that they call it pork-barrelling in the United States. If people do not vote for the right decision, there is no Government investment. That seems to me to be a callous, unprincipled and perverted use of public money. Poor tenants are being punished for pitting their judgment against the Secretary of State's wishes. He

proposes that the professionals should be put in charge of the tenants. I want tenants to be in charge of the professionals.
I have put my tenants on the Angell Town estate in touch with Oxford polytechnic school of architecture. It now acts as their professional adviser. The tenants resent the idea of housing action trusts because, using their own professionals, they have developed both inner city and estate action schemes to improve their estates.
The tenants thought that they had the confidence of the Housing Corporation and the Department of the Environment. However, the Department of the Environment turned on them, as it turned on the tenants of estates in other parts of the country, and sought to seize the estates from them. The tenants have won a considerable victory, but I want my tenants to have the victory not just of the vote but of a Government assurance that they will not be punished for the choice that they have made and for their success.

Mr. John Heddle: I voted in favour of the guillotine motion because I want this legislation, which formed a major part of the Conservative party's manifesto at the last general election, to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible so that municipal harassment, misleading information and the threats that have been made to tenants in certain housing action trust areas can be redressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment will then be able to publish unbiased, straightforward literature that explains the rights that the members of housing action trust boards will have when the Bill becomes law.
I have to declare an interest. Together with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am an honorary vice-president of the Building Societies Association. The building societies and other responsible financial institutions have a responsibility and duty, as well as an opportunity when housing action trusts have been established, to play a specific role in improving their neighbourhoods. That point was expressed most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Such areas have been starved of investment and care by housing departments. One has only to examine Lambeth, Southwark and Tower Hamlets and their rent arrears and voids to realise that their housing stock has not been cared for as it would have been if the tenants' voice had been heard more loudly and sympathetically.
I welcome four things which have come out of today's debate and which also came out of our debates in Committee during the summer. First, through the powers devolved to the Housing Corporation by the Bill, my right hon. Friend will seek legally binding guarantees on rents from future landlords, whoever they may be. Secondly, local residents and people who live in a HAT area can be represented on the HAT board. Thirdly, new landlords, whether from the private sector, the voluntary housing movement, housing associations or building societies such as the Nationwide Anglia, will need approval from the Housing Corporation. Fourthly, HATs will have a duty to co-operate with local authorities which ask for assistance in discharging their responsibilities to solve the problem of homelessness.
I believe that the housing action trust is a further imaginative way in which to improve the environment in parts of the six selected boroughs.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his speech, the Secretary of State read a statement about ballots. During the Division which is to take place shortly, will he check that his quotation was from the Bill that was sent to the other place and not an amendment put in by somebody else? There has been some confusion, and I hope that the matter can be clarified before the debate on the next group of Lords amendments.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is trying to catch my eye. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. I was quoting from the amendment which I have tabled on the Order Paper.

Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State's error was to quote from the Lords amendment. He will need to check the record, but that is generally understood to be the case.

Mr. Ridley: I immediately apologise.
I must reinforce, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that there is no way in which I can designate a HAT under the amendment that I have proposed unless a ballot has taken place and the majority of those who vote and are entitled to vote are in favour of it. He is quite wrong to doubt that.
There is one unresolved issue—whether the ballot should he conducted directly by me or whether it should be conducted by an independent body such as the Electoral Reform Society. Those are the options for which the amendment provides. I am happy to say that the Electoral Reform Society will, I think, agree to conduct ballots, so there will be no need for me to do it. I prefer it that way.
The hon. Member for Copeland and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) complained about cuts in housing investment. When we consider housing capital, we have to take into account the growing quantity of receipts available to and spent by councils. On that basis, spending by councils on housing has increased from £2·251 billion in 1980–81 to an estimated £3375 billion in 1988–89. That is not a cut of 70 per cent.—it is an increase of about 50 per cent. That is a point which I must get the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to understand. The difficulty is that, within that greatly increased total, receipts lie in areas that are often quite different from where the needs are. Therefore, I cannot increase allocations—indeed, I have to reduce them—because I have to accommodate the fact that councils have the right to spend 20 per cent. of those receipts, and nearly always do so.
The total figures have risen greatly, but I concede that in the process the areas of greatest need have suffered because allocations have been reduced. Therefore, if we want to give. an area special help, we have to find some device such as the one that I have proposed—the housing action trust—to bring new money outside the capital control system to that particular area. That is what I have sought to do.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for confessing on the record that because of Government policy the areas of greatest

housing need have suffered expenditure cuts. That is what he has just admitted. Why has it taken him so long to be honest with the House?

Mr. Ridley: I did not say that those areas suffered cuts in their expenditure, I said that there had been cuts in their capital allocation. That has never been concealed. It is public knowledge that during the past eight years there have been progressive cuts in capital allocations for the reasons that I have just given, but total spending has increased. The hon. Gentleman has never been able to understand that. I hope that he understands it at last.

Mr. Shore: I do not wish to mislead the House, but surely the figures that the Secretary of State has quoted are current prices and were not adjusted for changes in price during the eight years. Although the figures, allowing for inflation, are up, there has been a reduction in real terms.

Mr. Ridley: I was quoting the cash prices. Even then that is not a 70 per cent. cut. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, but he should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and explain the difference between allocation and spending which his hon. Friend has consistently failed to understand.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's later point, it would be possible to legislate some biased system, to give some extra money over and above the normal allocation to certain councils. That would be possible, but we are not proposing to do that. I shall not switch money to councils which have vacancy rates, have failed to collect rents and rent arrears and have the sort of management records that we have heard about this morning. It is better to switch that money so that it goes to repair and not to the various evils we have been discussing.
I must tell the hon. Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that that is not blackmail. If estates refuse to accept a housing action trust, all that will happen is that they will go back into the current system of capital allocations plus 20 per cent. of housing receipts which are available to be spent, plus estate action provision which will be available to all councils as it is now, on an equal and fair basis. We are offering the tenants of the estates a priority, and they can turn it down. That is not a punishment; it is a conscious decision. I hope that I have now cleared up that point.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) described the amendment as equivocal. It is not. It is typical of the misunderstanding or the misinformation which she deliberately spreads. I do not accuse her of deliberate misinformation, but she does not understand. If she is going to talk to her tenant constituents, will she please take the trouble to get it right? There is nothing equivocal about the amendment. There will be a ballot and a decision by a majority of those who vote. If she, as a Member of Parliament, cannot get that right, how on earth will she give her constituents the proper information which they need?

Mr. Soley: There is genuine confusion. Perhaps the Secretary of State has been advised by his solicitors. Two choices are open to him: first, to hand over the job to an independent body, which he has said he wants to do; and, secondly, to conduct a ballot or poll if he thinks fit. In the second case, the key words are "ballot or poll". We are not


sure whether a vote is implied by the use of the word "poll". A ballot must be a vote, whereas in everyday parlance a poll does not necessarily mean a vote.

Mr. Ridley: I am advised by the parliamentary draftsmen that they are the correct terms to use if we wish to cover the two possibilities of the Electoral Reform Society deciding, first, to have a postal ballot or, secondly, to set up boxes in polling booths into which people may place their votes, as we do when we vote in parliamentary elections. The phrase that the draftsmen suggested is apparently a well-known phrase that covers either alternative. I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that that point will no longer be a subject of questions.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that we should put tenants in charge of officials instead of officials being in charge of tenants. But does he believe that the tenants on the estate in his constituency, or those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham, are in charge of the officials who run those housing departments? If they are, I can assume only that they must like living in such conditions. But of course they are not. Tenants need liberation. There is now no reason why Labour Members should not decide on a free vote whether they put their political prejudices in front of the interests of their constituents.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 74.

Division No. 491]
[2.32 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Chris


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)





Forth, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Sir Hal


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Iain


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


French, Douglas
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, George
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gill, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gregory, Conal
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Page, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Portillo, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Redwood, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Riddick, Graham


Hill, James
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Scott, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Irving, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Speller, Tony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Squire, Robin


Key, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stern, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knowles, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Latham, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Trippier, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Malins, Humfrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mans, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maples, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Marland, Paul
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Walden, George


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walters, Sir Dennis


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Ward, John


Mellor, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray
Younger, Rt Hon George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ingram, Adam


Allen, Graham
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Livingstone, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Livsey, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
McAvoy, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Martlew, Eric


Battle, John
Meacher, Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Meale, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Blunkett, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Boateng, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Bradley, Keith
Murphy, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Patchett, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter L.


Crowther, Stan
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Richardson, Jo


Cummings, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cunningham, Dr John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ruddock, Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fatchett, Derek
Soley, Clive


Fearn, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Foulkes, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fraser, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Fyfe, Maria
Winnick, David


Galloway, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gordon, Mildred
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Harman, Ms Harriet



Holland, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment (b) made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 46, line 19, at beginning insert
'Subject to section 61 below'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 61

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

"(2) The Secretary of State shall, in each estate in any area in respect of which he proposes to make a designation order, make arrangements for the conduct of a ballot of tenants in the estate, and no order may be made under section 60(1) above in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide for the definition of 'tenant'."

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the said Lords amendment: (c) in page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) Where the Secretary of State is considering a proposal to make a designation order, he shall use his best endeavours to secure that notice of the proposal is given to all tenants of houses in the area proposed to be designated who are either secure tenants or tenants of such description as may be prescribed by regulations.

(2A) After having taken the action required by subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall either—

(a) make arrangements for such independent persons as appear to him to be appropriate to conduct, in such manner as seems best to them, a ballot or poll of the tenants who have been given notice of the proposal as mentioned in that subsection with a view to establishing their opinions about the proposal to make a designation order; or
(b) if it seems appropriate to him to do so, arrange for the conduct of a ballot or poll of those tenants in such manner as appears to him best suited to establish their opinions about the proposal.
(2B) If it appears from a ballot or poll conducted as mentioned in subsection (2A) above that a majority of the tenants who, on that ballot or poll, express an opinion about the proposal to make the designation order are opposed to it, the Secretary of State shall not make the order proposed.
(2C) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

(d), in line 14, leave out 'or steps taken'.
(e), in line 15, leave out 'or subsection (2) above as if taken' and insert 'above as if undertaken'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Lords amendments Nos. 74 and 75 agreed to.

Clause 74

TRANSFER OF LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY TO HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to Lords amendment No. 76, with which we shall take amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendment No. 120.

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 56, line 13, at end insert—

("(5A) Where an order is made under this section—

(a) payments made by a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be prescribed expenditure for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (capital expenditure of local authorities); and
(b) unless the order otherwise provides, payments made to a local authority as mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be regarded for the purposes of the Part as sums received by the authority in respect of disposal falling within section 75(2) of that Act."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after 'authorities)' in sub paragraph (a) insert
'and the amount of expenditure prescribed for an authority under the said Part shall be adjusted by the amount of any such payments'.
We shall not ask the House to divide on this amendment—[Interruption.] I could be pushed. However, we will save the surprise for a little later.
We do not like the Lords amendment because it suggests that if the property taken over by a HAT is given a positive value, the money that the local authority receives will be treated as a capital receipt, and currently only 20 per cent. of such receipts can be spent in any one year. The Government have issued a consultation document suggesting that in future 75 per cent. of capital


receipts will have to be applied against debt. Any local authority, such as Newham, that is desperately trying to provide homes for the homeless, or to repair ageing or defective stock, will have to come to a halt in 1990–91 if it has any debts outstanding. Such treatment of capital receipts will inhibit the ability of local authorities to deal with problems in their stock.
Of course, that is really what the Government want. They are setting up local authorities so that they fail as landlords. The Government want to ensure that local authorities cannot carry out major repairs or improvements so that they can take away even more properties. The spiral of loss of stock without compensation and without the ability to improve remaining stock will continue, yet the best evidence shows that disrepair in the public sector stock is not the fault of the local authority landlord. The Audit Commission made that quite clear in its 1986 report.
The position is complicated because the Chancellor, in his Autumn Statement, announced a cut in housing allocation of 26 per cent. in real terms. Where will the money come from to pay a dowry to a HAT? Unless an increase in local authorities' proscribed expenditure is announced, that money will have to come from other housebuilding programmes. That is grossly unfair. If we did not have this nonsense of a procedure this afternoon, we would press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Ridley: I can answer the hon. Gentleman briefly by telling him that amendments Nos. 76 and 120 bring payments received by a local authority on transfer of property to a HAT or under tenants' choice within the normal workings of the capital control system. As the hon. Gentleman said, under the present regime 20 per cent. of housing receipts are available to be spent each year on a declining basis. If we switch to the system described in the consultative document, authorities will be able to spend 25 per cent. and the remaining 75 per cent. will be applied to debt. There will thus be an increase from 20 to 25 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a dowry if the stock is of negative value. My officials recently discussed this with local authority associations at a meeting of the Housing Consultative Council and noted the desire of the associations that additional resources should be made available if dowries were required. It will be some months before sufficient information is available on the valuation of properties to be transferred to HATs, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall consider the matter sympathetically at the appropriate time.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 76 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 77 to 80 agreed to.

Clause 92

RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART IV

Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 69, line 14, leave out "any freehold" and insert
the fee simple estate in any

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 85, amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 85 and Lords amendment No. 127.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to raise just one question about Lords amendment No. 85 and amendment (a). I have given the Minister notice of my question and I hope that he will be able to give a clear answer. The amendment probes the question whether when premises owned by a local authority comprise both residential and commercial premises—for instance, a shop with a flat above—those premises are included or excluded from the tenants' choice provisions. I have had inquiries from shopkeepers with residential premises owned by the local authority in Jamaica road in my constituency. The Lords amendent, which has been described as a technical amendment, appears to include such shops. I should be grateful to know for certain whether that is so.

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. It is possible for the freehold of a shop to be transferred under the tenants' choice provisions if it is part of a building which satisfies the conditions delineated in clause 92 and 94 or is added to the acquisition at the suggestion of the landlord under clause 97(1)(d). The effect is not brought about by new paragraph (a) in Lords amendment No. 85 and it would not be a relevant consideration whether the tenant of the shop lived in council premises.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak for a second time at this stage, but if he waits until I propose the question on amendment No. 85, he can seek to catch my eye.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos, 82 to 84 agreed to.

Clause 94

PROPERTY EXCLUDED FROM RIGHT

Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 71, line 14, at end insert—

"(1A) In the application of subsection (1) above to property falling within section 92(1)(b) above, a building or part of a building which, apart from this subsection, would not be regarded as occupied for residential purposes shall be so regarded if—

(a) it is or is intended to be occupied together with a dwelling-house and used for purposes connected with the occupation of the dwelling-house; or
(b) it is or is intended to be used for the provision of services to a dwelling-house which is comprised in a building falling within section 92(1)(a) above."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wish to move his amendment (a), leave out lines 6 to 8, paragraph (a)?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. The Minister has confirmed that there is a risk that people with residential and business premises—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Member to make a second speech. I was asking whether he wished to move his amendment (a) formally or to withdraw it.

Mr. Hughes: May I have permission, with the leave of the House, to respond to the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, the hon. Member may speak again.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister has confirmed what we feared. I shall not proceed with my amendment because I do not wish to detain the House by forcing a vote now. It is a sad and unfortunate additional provision in the Bill, which was not clear before, that residential and now commercial premises will be included in tenants' choice and the unsatisfactory system which it will provide. For the reasons that I have given, I shall not proceed with my amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 86 to 95 agreed to.

Clause 99

TENANTS CONTINUING AS TENANTS OF LANDLORD

Lords amendment: No. 96, in page 74, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 97 to 102 and 106 to 109.

Lords amendment: No. 111, in page 76, line 13, leave out from "if" to "exceeds" in line 14 and insert
in response to the consultation under section 101 above,—`

(a) less than 50 per cent. of the tenants to whom that section applies have given notice of their wishes in such manner as may be prescribed; or
(b) the number of tenants to whom that section applies who have given notice in that manner of their wish to continue as tenants of the landlord"

Amendment (b) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) the number of tenants to whom that section applies who have given notice in that manner of their wish to become tenants of the applicant is less than 50 per cent. of the total number of tenants to whom that section applies; or.

Amendment (c) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) 50 per cent. or fewer of those eligible to vote in the consultation process under that section have given notice of their wish to transfer to the applicant; or'

Amendment (d) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) 50 per cent. or fewer of those voting in the consultation process under that section have given notice of their wish to transfer to the applicant; or'

Lords amendment No. 112, in page 76, line 15, at end insert—
(2A) In any case where a tenancy is held by two or more persons jointly, those persons shall be regarded as a single tenant for the purposes of subsection (2) above and, accordingly, any notice given in response to the consultation under section 101 above shall be of no effect for the purposes of subsection (2) above unless it is given by or on behalf of all the joint tenants.

Amendment (a) thereto, leave out from 'jointly,' to end, and insert
`each of those persons shall be regarded as a qualifying tenant for the purposes of subsection (2) above.'.

Lords amendments Nos. 113 and 115.

Mr. Trippier: All the amendments are concerned with the interrelated questions of entitlement to consultation

under clause 101, how votes are registered in the majority calculation under clause 102 and the provisions for excluding houses and leasing-back flats under clause 99.
Lords amendment No. 96 provides that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "shall" rather than "may" make regulations under clause 99 about exclusions and lease-back. There was never, in practice, any doubt that he would.
Lords amendment No. 108 was tabled by the Opposition in another place and accepted there on the Government's advice. It clarifies—as was virtually in all circumstances already the case—the point that a qualifying tenant, to be entitled to vote, must still occupy during the consultation period, under clause 101, a dwelling that he occupied on the date when the application was served.
Lords amendment No. 111 was tabled by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness in another place. It follows an arrangement proposed earlier by the Opposition there. It provides that an applicant may not proceed unless at least 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote do so one way or the other. I hope that this additional guarantee against the outcome of an application being decided by apathy will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In practice, we believe that there will be great tenant interest in the opportunities offered by tenants' choice and that this turnout figure will be met in all cases where there is a good prospect of a successful transfer. It also removes a possible anomaly by ensuring that "no" votes cast by long leaseholders count towards the blocking majority required under clause 102 if the application is to be prevented from proceeding.
3 pm
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11l would set the minimum turnout required for a transfer at not 50 per cent. but 100 per cent. That is unreasonable, not least because the 50 per cent. figure came originally from an amendment moved by the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in the other place. I disagree with it 100 per cent.
Amendment No. 112 clarifies that joint tenants will have one vote, which must be cast jointly. This is the right arrangement because qualifying tenants' votes, as well as contributing collectively to deciding the outcome of the application, will also determine individually whether their home stays with the existing landlord or transfers to the applicant. Families and households will decide which way their shared decision should go. The same decision is made by almost every owner-occupied household at some time or another. Because of the effect on individual tenancies, the separate voting entitlement proposed for joint tenants in amendment (a) is not practicable.
The remaining Lords amendments—Nos. 97 to 102, 106 and 107, 109, 113 and 115—put the Secretary of State's powers to prescribe descriptions of tenants for consultation under clause 101, and leaseback under clause 99, into a form which allows the links between the two processes to be completely and satisfactorily followed through. They will, for example, allow him to ensure that commercial tenants are entitled to consultation under clause 101 on a similar basis to long leaseholders. They will allow him to ensure that successors to a qualifying tenant during the period between the relevant date and consultation get a vote. They will allow him to arrange that flats which the landlord should be able to hold on to


indefinitely—old people's or handicapped people's flats exempted from the right to buy—are leased back under clause 99 as a matter of course.
Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 100 go to the heart of the issue. The amendments to Lords amendment No. 111 would all prevent an application from proceeding if less than 50 per cent. of eligible tenants voted positively to transfer. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendments. They would disturb the balance that we have carefully struck in the Bill to facilitate change for those tenants who want and need it, while providing the strongest possible safeguards for individuals.
I remind the House that the terms of approvals given by the Housing Corporation under clause 93 will require potential applicants, wherever practicable, to take part in a preliminary competition to establish initial tenant preference. My noble Friend announced in Committee in another place that the successful competitor will have to demonstrate initial "in principle" support from at least 10 per cent. of tenants before he can go ahead.
The conditions of applicant's approval will oblige them to keep tenants informed about progress with the application. When the time for formal consultation arrives, tenants will have a contractual offer of new tenancy terms from the applicant. At the same time, but quite separately, they will receive, from the independent teller, their ballot form, accompanied by comprehensive information about the process, including the consequences of voting either way or of abstaining. If any eligible tenant fails initially to vote, or returns an invalid ballot paper, the independent teller will call back and help tenants, if they wish to do so, to cast a valid vote.
When the vote is counted, we shall have taken every realistic step to ensure that tenants have known about the process, the implications of voting and not voting, the contents and status of the applicant's offer and their individual rights. A secure tenant who does not want to transfer need not change landlords against his or her will. Against that background, we believe that it is right to provide that those who, having heard all the arguments, have no feelings strong enough to vote either way, do not damage the opportunities of those who need and want change.

Mr. Soley: The Government got themselves into such a mess that they had to impose the guillotine motion. The House is having to deal with amendments in an undesirable fashion.
A number of amendments in this group, and in following groups, are desirable, but some are undesirable. I shall be speaking in favour of amendment No. 108 and the amendments to amendment No. 111. We are opposed to amendment No. 207, but in favour of amendment No. 208. For reasons that the House will understand—people outside may not understand so easily—we shall vote on some of those issues. We might support some of the associated amendments even if we vote against the others.
Having said that, this is an important group of amendments and we would have liked to spend more time on it. It deals with the scheme launched by the Government—"Pick a landlord." It should be called, "Pick a tenant." The first point—I have made it before but I shall make it again to the new Minister because he may

not have heard it—is that if it is so wonderful for a tenant to be able to change landlords, why does it not apply to the private sector for non-resident landlords? Rights are supposed to be universal. I want the message to go out loud and clear that the Labour party has not been opposed to people being able to change their landlords. That has happened in Glasgow and Sheffield where local authorities have led the way.
It is important to know—I want this on the record for Conservative Members who take an interest in these matters—that under a future Labour Government tenants of non-resident private landlords will be given the ability to change their landlords. That means that all those pushed out into the private sector by this wretched Bill will have a chance to turn the decision around. That choice is denied them today. It also means that the tenants of the Rachmans and van Hoogstratens of the world will be able to go to their town hall, local housing association or housing co-operative and ask them to take over the tenancy. Subject to certain rules and regulations that need to be applied, they will have that right. Private landlords, whether they are taking over council properties or are already operating in this area, had better be aware of the implications of that if they prove to be bad landlords.
It is my judgment—it has always been the Opposition's judgment—that most people do not want to change their landlords. Most people—particularly in the public sector —are satisfied. We know from independent polls that the public sector is popular in most areas. There are areas where it is unpopular from time to time and tenants need to be given additional powers.
A landlord may make an offer for council properties. We should note that individual tenants do not say, "Will you come in?" As a group they may be able to ask a housing association to come in, but that is not what usually happens. A private organisation may take an interest in a set of properties and tell the local authority that it is interested in taking it over. The local authority will be obliged by law to provide all the information on the properties such as rent levels, rent arrears, empty properties, the cost of caretaking and so on. Only then will there be the so-called vote.
The important point is that it is not only people who abstain who are counted as being in favour of a transfer. In the other place when my noble Friends were moving amendment No. 108, it was clear that empty properties and people who had died would be included in the vote as having voted in favour of the takeover. That amendment has now been accepted and the Government, after much criticism from me, members of my party, and tenants have changed their opinion and we welcome that.
The Government talk about my hon. Friends whipping up fear and hysteria around the country. We have not done that, but the Government have. If I had been asked to organise a meeting of 200, 300 or 400 tenants on a housing issue, I would have said that I could not do it. However, as soon as the Government published the Bill and tenants became aware of its implications, not just public tenants but private tenants, they began to ask us to hold meetings. That happened in Conservative-controlled areas with non-political tenants' associations. If the Government need any evidence about that, they should ask the Association of District Councils and Lady Anson. The ADC is controlled by the Conservative party, but it


does not agree with the voting system. The National Consumer Council, hardly a Labour party organisation, described the system as, "inertia selling."

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the meetings held throughout the country. He must be aware —I can verify this—that a considerable number of the meetings, particularly those about HATs, were attended by members of Militant and the Socialist Workers party. Is he happy to be associated with those people?

Mr. Soley: I am happy to be associated with the tenants. It was they who organised and ran the meetings, and I am 100 per cent. with them. I do not care a damn about fringe individuals from the Left or the Right, including Tory party members, attending those meetings. If they were tenants, they were welcome. It is tenants who have fought and won the battle over housing action trusts, and they will win again with our support. There are bound to be groups from the Left, Right and centre, and from no political affiliation, who will attend tenants' meetings. It is the tenants who have our support and who lead the movement against the Government's proposals.

Mr. Trippier: May I have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that in the likelihood of misleading information, from whatever source, being given to tenants in the run-up to any form of ballot, and if it is proved to his satisfaction that it is misleading, he will publicly condemn such literature? Yes or no?

Mr. Soley: No problem. The Minister is right to say that deliberately misleading information has been produced. That has been done at the taxpayer's expense and distributed by the Department of the Environment. I quote from the leaflet, "Government Proposals for Housing: Tenants' Choice"—and that is misleading in its own right:
Each tenant who was eligible to vote would have to decide whether to vote 'yes', vote 'no' or abstain. It would be very important for you to consider fully and carefully all the arguments for and against a transfer. There would be plenty of time for this. But once you had decided to transfer, you would not be able to change your mind.
Any tenant reading that paragraph would believe that he had three choices—that he could vote yes, no or abstain. That is a lie paid for by the taxpayer.
It is a lie because if one abstains, one is counted as voting yes. The National Consumer Council describes that as inertia selling. I give the Minister this opportunity. He wants me to condemn misleading information; will he join me in condemning that leaflet and say that he will withdraw it, also ensuring that a new leaflet is distributed making it explicit that if a tenant abstains from voting, he will be counted as having voted in favour? Yes or no?

Mr. Trippier: What is said in the leaflet is correct. I am prepared to say on behalf of the Government that if at any stage misleading information is given to tenants, and it can be proved by the hon. Gentleman that it is misleading, certainly I shall either publicly apologise or correct it. I put to the hon. Gentleman again a question that I asked of him a few moments ago. If it can be proved that misleading information, on whatever system, has been given to tenants, will he publicly denounce it?

Mr. Soley: I have said yes to that already—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I did. It was on the record before and I shall put it on the record again now.
The Minister asked me to prove the existence of misleading information. Does he accept that the National Consumer Council agrees with me that the system proposed can be described as inertia selling and that it has stated that publicly? Does he also recognise that inertia selling is not only frowned upon but is in certain circumstances, illegal? In view of the offer that the Minister has just put to me, will he acknowledge the proof provided by the National Consumer Council that the leaflet is misleading? Will he withdraw it and replace it with a clear statement that if a tenant abstains, he will be counted as having voted yes? Will the Minister give a direct answer to that question?

Mr. Trippier: I do not accept that that is a lie.

Mr. Soley: But then there is the opinion of the National Consumer Council. Will the Minister pay attention before the civil servants trouble him? He has the whole quote before him. He is on the spot now and knows that he is in difficulty. He says that he wants to get rid of misleading information, but the leaflet does not say that if a tenant abstains, he will be deemed to have voted yes. The National Consumer Council's view is that such is inertia selling. That is the independent proof for which the Minister asked. Will he withdraw the leaflet? Why should the taxpayer pay for a lie put out by the Government?

Mr. Trippier: As far as I am aware the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the leaflet. It is on the record, he has referred to it and he can read it again in Hansard. On page 8 there is a question:
Could my home be transferred over my head? To which the answer is:
No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord.

Mr. Soley: Precisely. That is what the National Consumer—[Interruption.] The Minister is trying very hard to get out of a hole. I make this offer to him. He should go to the National Consumer Council and take its advice on the wording. The Minister's example appears on the following page. The previous page refers to the voting system—

Mr. Trippier: No.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister stop interrupting and muttering into his chin and listen for a moment. The position is clear. The National Consumer Council, the Association of District Councils, which is controlled by the Conservative party, and every organisation outside the House agree with me that this information is misleading. I say that it is a lie. The Minister knows what is on the page. He is aware that on the following page it states:
Could my home be transferred over my head?
To which the answer is, "No". However, it can be transferred in certain circumstances. The real answer to that question is yes and I will deal anon with the circumstances in which that can happen if I have the time. The answer in the document reads:
No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord. But nobody who had voted against the transfer would be transferred against their wishes.
The part that matters appears under the heading:
How would I decide whether I wanted to vote to transfer?


We should remember that the other quote is from another part of the document—and that is the part which the National Consumer Council, the Conservative-controlled ADC and everyone else claim is inertia selling. It is misleading and the independent proof comes from the National Consumer Council. The biased proof comes from the Conservative-controlled ADC. Many other independent and political groups say that it is dishonest and paid for by the taxpayer.
The Minister has done enough wriggling now. The answer is clear. He is not prepared to withdraw or alter misleading information.

Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I will give way only if the Minister will put it on the record that he will withdraw the leaflet—

Mr. Trippier: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One hon. Member at a time.

Mr. Trippier: How on earth could I be expected to put right what is clear to everyone inside and outside the House? It is absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman is on a very weak point. There is no way in which one could misinterpret the words. I will read them out again so that they are on the record a third time. Why on earth does the hon. Gentleman think we included them?
Could my home be transferred over my head?
No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord.
It is crystal clear.

Mr. Soley: I have two points. Let me try to persuade the Minister. First, will the Minister leave this House and ask the National Consumer Council—which I presume he accepts is an independent body—and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils whether they accept that the wording is misleading? They say it is and I believe that they are right.
On the next page there is a question:
Could my home be transferred over my head? The leaflet answers emphatically, "No", adding:
nobody who had voted against the transfer would be transferred against their wishes.
That is incorrect.
Again I challenge the Minister. The leaflet ignores the position of licensees who will be denied any right to vote, including people allocated homes on an estate subject to an allocation, who could well have their homes transferred over their heads without having any say in the matter. It is therefore misleading—[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would stop getting so agitated and would stay quiet for a minute. Will the Minister say that he understands my point and is prepared to go to the National Consumer Council and the Conservative-controlled ADC and take their advice. Will he do that?
The Minister will not change it. As we have heard, he is not prepared to withdraw misleading information which is in fact a lie, paid for by the taxpayer.

Mr. Trippier: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall not give way to the Minister any more. We have had enough prevarication and avoidance. The implication is clear. If the Minister will not take the

advice of the ADC or the MCC, that tells us what we already know. As I said to the Secretary of State the other night, the Minister and the Government have managed to create unnecessary terror and fear among many tenants, particularly elderly people who remember the Rachmans of old. Why should they be placed in that position?
If Conservative-controlled organisations such as the ADC arrange meetings that conclude that the information is misleading, am I to disagree when I know that they are right?

Mr. Trippier: rose—

Mr. Soley: No, no, the Minister must sit down. He is not prepared to intervene with an admission that he will not follow the example of independent organisations. It is incredibly dishonest of him to argue, as he has, that tenants will be given a choice. At best, this is a one-way ticket to a private landlord.
When challenged, the Government began defending their action by saying that if someone did not bother to vote it would mean that they did not mind going to a new landlord. That was the previous Minister's defence. Then the Government got into trouble. I gave an example—which, incidentally, would still apply—of a service man fighting in the Falklands. Let us suppose that the Government had imposed this new system. Even with the Lords amendments, if the service man was in the Falklands for three months—unless he found time to stop the battle for a few minutes, consider the available information and then vote—he would come back to find his home transferred over his head.
Does any Conservative Member wish to defend that? The Government are all for defending the troops in the Falklands while they are working to get the Government out of a hole created because they cannot run a defence policy. At the same time the Government are prepared to take homes from service men while they are clearing up the mess.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am sure that the fighting forces will be pleased at the first sign of support that they have ever had from the hon. Gentleman. But he is basing his claim on what I would call a Powellite line of argument. The line of argument hangs together, but to accept it we must accept the basis of the argument, which is untrue.
The hon. Gentleman is not being forthcoming or honest about the time that the process will take: it will take a long time. He and his political friends have not been telling the truth about that to council tenants up and down the country.

Mr. Soley: In fact it will not take a very long time, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
This is what we shall do. The next time that General Galtieri invades we shall ask him to make sure that the war lasts a short enough time for troopers to be able to vote. The point is that in this case if tenants abstain they vote "Yes", and in no other democratic system does that apply.
Having spotted that they had got into trouble, the Government then tried another line of defence. They said, "It is all right, you can stay with the council." That again was inertia selling: they did not tell tenants that they would have to pay the rent set by the new landlord, despite remaining council tenants. They did not tell them that they would have to pay all the service charges set by the new


landlord. They did not say what would happen if a local authority had not transferred all its stock, and wanted to transfer that as well. And the Government wonder why tenants are afraid.
The draft industrial relations code about which the Government are now talking insists on a much larger vote even on a work-to-rule. Workers do not even have to go on strike for the Government to want a 70 per cent. vote. It is different then, is it not? What about abstentions in those circumstances?
The Secretary of State is determined to push tenants into the private sector. The Peat Marwick report says so. The previous Minister also said so in Parliament. The Secretary of State says that he wants all local authorities to give up council housing. However, the Government have seriously .misjudged the popularity of councils and councillors. Although tenants often rightly criticise their councils and councillors, they know that they can elect them. They also know that they cannot elect or remove a Mr. van Hoogstraten or a Mr. Rachman. That is what they are afraid of. That is why the Government have whipped up so much fear and hysteria.
Such an important debate should never have taken place under a guillotine motion, but what I say in this Chamber is not nearly so important as what tenants, both private and public, feel about the Bill. At the end of the day they will decide. The Government have politicised tenants in a way that they could never have dreamt was possible.

Mr. Trippier: I think that I can be forgiven for smiling wryly—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister spoke for a long time and persistently interrupted me while I spoke. A number of Back Benchers on both sides of the House would like the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The voting system that the Government are trying to railroad through Parliament is far worse than the legislation on which it is allegedly based, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Under this system, it is clear that if tenants do not vote it will be presumed that they are in favour of being transferred to a private landlord. The non-vote will be counted as a "Yes" vote. I have asked the Secretary of State questions and I have given him a list of those that so far remain unanswered.
Even the Prime Minister did not realise the draconian nature of the measure that her Ministers in the Department of the Environment were proposing. She said on 23 June this year that if the majority of tenants agree, their tenancies can be transferred. I told the right hon. Lady that that was not what the Bill said. She had no answer. Eventually, after two letters to Downing street, she replied in the middle of August. She said:
Tenants who choose to transfer, whether they express that choice explicitly by a vote in favour, or implicitly through informed acquiescence, will indeed have agreed to the transfer.

From the highest authority it is now abundantly clear that, according to the Government, the majority who must agree is made up not just of those who vote "Yes"—and there need be none of those—but of those who do not vote at all. The Prime Minister claims that she is the senior democratic statesperson in the world, but she now says that voting does not matter: that what matters is that views should be expressed "implicitly through informed acquiescence."
What is it that makes a system of voting by silence, by informed acquiescence, better than a system under which people are asked whether they want to vote "Yes' or "No"? The Government have made it clear in the case of trade unions that even a vote of 70 per cent. in favour ma .y not be adequately representative.
I am a lawyer. It is a principle of English law that silence normally means no. Halsbury's "Laws of England' make it clear that one cannot bind an offeree as an offeror against the latter's will by expressly stipulating that if the offeree does nothing he will be bound to a contract. Does the voting system that the Bill opposes break the principle that silence in law normally means no? If it does not break that principle the Minister and the Secretary of State have not yet explained why it does not do so.
A distorted, biased voting system is the plainest evidence that the Government are not concerned about tenants' choice. Their primary purpose in introducing the Bill is not that tenants should choose, but that council estates should be demunicipalised and privatised. Tenants are seen as a barrier to the Government's will. The role of tenants is to see whether they can get enough people together to stop the Government's steamroller rolling on. The Bill is not concerned with tenants' choice, tenant initiative or tenant freedom. Today is a sad day. The Bill represented an opportunity to maximise freedom for tenants to get together to improve their position. Instead, the bill is the product of a Government who put theories about private being good and public being bad before the minds, hearts and aspirations of people throughout the land.
We would have chosen to vote on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 111, but because of procedural technicalities that will not be possible. Because we have no choice as a result of a guillotine being in place, we shall vote on Lords amendment No. 96. We shall oppose the Government to show that some hon. Members still understand democracy. We will show them that some hon. Members will fight for democracy and will resist democracy being perverted by a Government who are in power on a minority of votes and who clearly do not understand what democracy is about.
When the House votes it decides by a majority, but when tenants vote they will have a fixed system. The sooner the Government learn that they cannot fool tenants, the better it will be.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in wanting some answers from the Minister. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that certain things should be on the record. It should be on the record, therefore, that the Minister is unable to answer this debate because the Labour party refuses to allow him to speak again.

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the courtesy that he has extended to me, which is in stark contrast to that which was not extended to me by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Does he agree that the by-election result in Govan is relevant to what we are discussing today as we are giving—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only three more minutes, and I do not think that we should go into that subject.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said. We have such strong opposition to this group of amendments because councils, especially Labour-controlled councils, will in future be exposed to competition and the prospect of another landlord taking over their estates.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith is keen to tell us that the Bill is already a failure, but it is not yet on the statute book. He tells us that it cannot work in various respects. He should give it some time to operate before he comes to such a conclusion.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly not.
The London borough of Lambeth has already said that it must get its act together and improve its services to its tenants or they will vote with their feet. That is what the Labour party is so afraid of. It recognises that tenants will vote with their feet and—

Mr. Paul Boateng: rose—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member does not wish to give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Hughes: Opposition Members realise that once council tenants know that they can get away from the slum landlords that Labour councils represent, they will take that opportunity.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I do not have any time. For the hon. Member for Hammersmith—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not say that it is a gross abuse of the House for an hon. Member who voted in favour of the guillotine motion and who has not been here most of the afternoon to try to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) needs an eyesight test.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I am not giving way.
The reality is that the Labour party does not like this measure. That is understandable because it is going to lose control of its estates.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I am certainly not giving way.
I wish to put on record—as this is an afternoon for getting things on the record—that during the process of consultation—

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and Housing Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 50.

Division No. 492]
[3.35 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forth, Eric


Alexander, Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freeman, Roger


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Amos, Alan
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, George


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gill, Christopher


Ashby, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gow, Ian


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gregory, Conal


Bellingham, Henry
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Hanley, Jeremy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Haselhurst, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, Jerry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boswell, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Heddle, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hill, James


Bowis, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Chris
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jackson, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Janman, Tim


Carttiss, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Devlin, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dicks, Terry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul






Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Portillo, Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Sims, Roger
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Anderson, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Livsey, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beith, A. J.
Martlew, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Meale, Alan


Blunkett, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Boateng, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Patchett, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Cummings, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cunningham, Dr John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Ruddock, Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fearn, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Soley, Clive


Galloway, George
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Holland, Stuart



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that amendments Nos. 207 and 208 involve privilege.

Lords amendment: No. 207, in page 118, line 30. at end insert—
and with that approval the Secretary of State may undertake to meet any liabilities arising in respect of such pensions, allowances or gratuities after the dissolution of the trust

Question put forthwith,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 46.

Divsion No. 493]
[3.48 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Alexander, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Freeman, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
French, Douglas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Gardiner, George


Atkinson, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsorn)


Benyon, W.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Harris, David


Body, Sir Richard
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayes, Jerry


Boswell, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Hayward, Robert


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heddle, John


Bowis, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brazier, Julian
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butler, Chris
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Latham, Michael


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Favell, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David






McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moss, Malcolm
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Watts, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Tim



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. John M. Taylor


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Livingstone, Ken


Anderson, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Martlew, Eric


Battle, John
Meale, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Blunkett, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Boateng, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cummings, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Soley, Clive


Galloway, George
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 206 and 207 agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords om Lords amendments Nos. 97 to 206, 209 to 224, 228, 225 to 227 and 229 to 273:

The House divded: Ayes 199 , Noes 37.

Division No. 494]
[4.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Alexander, Richard
Harris, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Amess, David
Hayes, Jerry


Amos, Alan
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Arbuthnot, James
Hayward, Robert


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Ashby, David
Heddle, John


Atkinson, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bellingham, Henry
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bendall, Vivian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W.
Hunter, Andrew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Irvine, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Jack, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jackson, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Janman, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowis, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Burns, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Burt, Alistair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Butler, Chris
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maclean, David


Carrington, Matthew
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Mans, Keith


Cash, William
Maples, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Marland, Paul


Chope, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maude, Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mellor, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Day, Stephen
Miller, Sir Hal


Devlin, Tim
Mills, Iain


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dover, Den
Monro, Sir Hector


Dunn, Bob
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Durant, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fallon, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Favell, Tony
Nicholls, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forth, Eric
Page, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gardiner, George
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Portillo, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorst, John
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Renton, Tim






Riddick, Graham
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Anderson, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Meale, Alan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Battle, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Beith, A. J.
Patchett, Terry


Bermingham, Gerald
Pike, Peter L.


Boateng, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Cunningham, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Soley, Clive


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Frank Cook.


McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 205 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That consequential amendments (b) to (d) be made to the Bill.
—[Mr.Trippier.]

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 5.

Division No. 495]
[4.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butler, Chris





Butterfill, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mellor, David


Carrington, Matthew
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Mills, Iain


Cash, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Chope, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cope, Rt Hon John
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nelson, Anthony


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Day, Stephen
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Devlin, Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dicks, Terry
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Paice, James


Dover, Den
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Dunn, Bob
Pawsey, James


Durant, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dykes, Hugh
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Favell, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Renton, Tim


Fishburn, John Dudley
Riddick, Graham


Forman, Nigel
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Forth, Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion


Freeman, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


French, Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Gill, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Tom


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gorst, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shersby, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Sims, Roger


Harris, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Haselhurst, Alan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hayes, Jerry
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hayward, Robert
Squire, Robin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heddle, John
Stern, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Summerson, Hugo


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Irvine, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Janman, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Tredinnick, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Trotter, Neville


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Knowles, Michael
Walden, George


Lawrence, Ivan
Ward, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Warren, Kenneth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Lord, Michael
Wheeler, John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Wiggin, Jerry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Mans, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Maples, John



Marland, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Maude, Hon Francis







NOES


Allen, Graham



Cohen, Harry
Tellers for the Noes:


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mr. Tony Banks and


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mr. John Battle.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the guillotine, we have obviously had a limited number of opportunities to vote. Two amendments were proposed to the Lords amendments by the Opposition, and those were dealt with in Divisions Nos. 482 and 483. The results were Ayes 68, Noes 169 and Ayes 65, Noes 159, respectively. May we assume that, with the Government's policy in the Housing Bill, as in both cases the Noes did not constitute a majority of hon. Members in this House, the Ayes have it and will continue to have it in future?

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,

That this House do meet on Tuesday 15th November at half-past Nine o'clock.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

EDUCATION

That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 19th October 1988, be approved.

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 19th October 1988, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question agreed to.

India (Sikh Community)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the Sikhs in India, an issue which, for some reason best known to the Government, has not been raised in the Chamber before. That omission by the Government could well be due to embarrassment, to say the least.
Just before independence the Constituent Assembly in India agreed a package of proposals called the Objectives Resolution which guaranteed the autonomous status of Sikhs in the Punjab. The British Government accepted the validity of the Objectives Resolution and, on the strength of that, granted India independence in 1947. Unfortunately, with the coming of independence, the guarantees given to the Sikhs were not honoured and the constitution was changed to reflect the interests of the Hindu majority.
Since then the British Government have said and done nothing over the years to correct that position, despite their direct involvement. We have continued to give aid to India as though money had gone out of fashion. Between 1978 and 1987 Britain has given about £1·6 billion in overseas aid and India has topped the league table of recipients in each of the past 10 years.
There are about 8,000 Sikhs in my constituency, the vast majority of whom are decent, hard-working people who want to live in peace with their neighbours and make a positive contribution to the community. Judging from reports that I have read of debates in the American Congress, the same is true of Sikhs who reside in the United States and of Sikhs the world over.
In India the Sikhs constitute about 2 per cent. of the population, but produce a quarter of India's gross national product. Sikh farmers account for 73 per cent. of wheat and 48 per cent. of rice produced in India. Many Sikhs have made a valuable contribution to the professions, to the military and to the Government of India.
I do not have to remind the House, especially at this time of the year, of the contribution that Sikhs have made in two world wars to defend the freedom and security of the United Kingdom. The list of decorations won by Sikh soldiers is a credit to their loyalty and devotion to our country.
Given that background, one would have thought that the Indian Government would have recognised the contribution that the Sikh community makes to the world and would treat it with the respect and understanding that it so richly deserves. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case.
While Rajiv Gandhi, the so-called leader of the world's largest democracy, struts like a bloated peacock on the international stage, condemning South Africa for its alleged abuse of human rights, he has been responsible for the murder, torture and imprisonment without trial of thousands of his fellow countrymen and he has left a great many others fearing for their lives.
Rajiv Gandhi is aware of and supports unlawful killing and widespread torture by his own security forces and the police. He is aware of and supports arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention without trial. He is also aware of and supports extrajudicial execution, which is unlawful killing


by the Government or Government-backed forces. Rajiv Gandhi is aware of and supports the killing of political activists as a result of fake encounters staged by the Indian police. The most widespread reports of these killings and other atrocities come from the Punjab, one of the regions where the security forces enjoy immunity from prosecution when exercising shoot-on-sight powers—powers given to them by the Indian Government led by Rajiv Ghandi.
According to an Amnesty International report, of August this year, more than 70 young Sikhs were killed by police in fake encounters in Amritsar in the month of August last year. The Indian Government have done nothing to investigate those claims; they have simply issued blanket denials and ignored any representations made to them.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I will not. We all know of my hon. Friend's support for the Indian Government and their behaviour.

Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack the head of a very friendly Commonwealth country in such a manner without giving other hon. Members the right to intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is contrary to our conventions to attack the head of a friendly state unreasonably, but equally no hon. Member has an obligation to give way to another.

Mr. Dicks: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend, because he supports the Indian Government and Rajiv Gandhi and the atrocities committed by the Indian Government in the name of so-called democracy.
Dozens of prisoners are reported to have died after torture in police stations, according to the review. Those most at risk of torture are political prisoners, many of whom are Sikhs. The most persistent allegations of torture of political prisoners have come from the Punjab, the home of the Sikhs, where prisoners have said that they were hung from ceilings with their hands tied behind their backs, beaten and given electric shocks. According to the Amnesty International report, those responsible for torturing prisoners are almost never brought to justice: they are allowed to continue along their evil path uninterrupted by the so-called democratic regime.
Amnesty International has also highlighted the fact that hundreds of political detainees have been held for four years under special security laws which lack basic legal safeguards. As would be expected, they include more than 300 Sikhs held in Jodhpur prison since June 1984, many of whom have been detained for non-violently expressing their political feelings.
How dare Rajiv Gandhi lecture the South African Government on human rights when evidence from Amnesty International and information received in this country by Sikhs from friends and relatives living in the Punjab show that without doubt blacks in South Africa are far more likely to have their human rights recognised by their Government than are the Sikhs by theirs. The Sikhs have to endure considerable suffering and injustice, and they do so with great dignity and courage.
The Indian Government claim that Sikh violence has been taking place in the Punjab area, and around the Golden Temple in particular. They have produced no

evidence to substantiate that claim, and as entry to the Punjab is severely limited many people, including myself, doubt the truth of those claims. Most of the Sikhs with whom I have come in contact, both here and abroad, are seeking a peaceful solution to the Punjab problem and a recognition of their position by the Indian Government.
Those interested in democracy should be pressing the Indian Government to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner, while at the same time bringing pressure to bear on them to recognise the human rights violations that have taken place. Unfortunately the British Government are taking a different view. They are turning a deaf ear to the cries of Sikhs in Britain who are concerned about the suffering of friends and relatives in India, and at the same time they are turning a blind eye to reports from organisations such as Amnesty International, which provide clear evidence of that suffering.
On 31 October this year I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he would make a statement on a recent report by Amnesty International entitled, "India—A review of Human Rights Violations." His answer was no. On the same day I asked him what representations he had made to the Indian Government about the alleged violation of basic hum an rights, as reported by Amnesty International. Again, his answer was no. I also asked whether he would publish the evidence on which he based his view that the judicial system in India protected the rights of minority groups such as the Sikhs. His answer was no. On the same day I asked whether he would receive a deputation from the Sikh community in Britain to discuss the allegation of violations of human rights in India. Again, his answer was no.
Finally, I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would use his good offices to persuade the Indian Government to grant me an entry visa to visit the Punjab and make contact with relatives and friends of my constituents. He replied that it was a matter for the Indian authorities.
Let me also bring to light an immigration case that is interesting to say the least. Until March of last year a Mr. Gunga Singh Dhillon, a Sikh with an American passport, had been allowed unfettered entry to the United Kingdom. However, when he arrived in August of last year he was prevented from entering the United Kingdom and sent back on the next available plane without being allowed access to a telephone to contact his solicitor or a Member of Parliament.
On making inquiries on behalf of Mr. Dhillon, I was told that he had been excluded for reasons of national security. I then asked what had happened between March 1987 and August 1987 to make the Home Office take this action. I was told that, even as the Member of Parliament involved, I could not be given that information. I am aware, however, as is Mr. Dhillon, that the Indian Government had brought pressure to bear on the British Government to ensure that Mr. Dhillon was not allowed to enter the United Kingdom. This gentleman—well respected in America and known to both Republican and Democrat politicians on Capitol Hill—was denied entry to this country to see his family, at the whim of the corrupt Indian Government.
On the evidence of the replies that I have received from the Foreign Office and the attitude towards Mr. Dhillon by the Home Office, it seems to me that the British Government are taking a blinkered, not to say hypocritical, view of the situation in India. Our


Government have never been slow publicly to condemn South Africa whenever an allegation of the violation of human rights has been made. They have intervened personally in the case of a group of black Africans, known as the Sharpeville Six, who are awaiting execution for crimes committed in the Republic. The Government, without any evidence being available at all, were quick to condemn the Iraqi Government for allegedly gassing the Kurds living in the north of Iraq. Even the Prime Minister, on her recent visit to Poland, spoke out in favour of freedom and justice for the people of that country.
Why, therefore, when it comes to India, does the British Government's attitude change dramatically? The evidence suggesting widespread violation of human rights is overwhelming. The man who is responsible for implementing that policy, the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Buta Singh, sought a bribe from me when I last visited India before he would respond to my request for information regarding a constituent of mine, Mrs. Kuldip Kaur, who had been wrongly imprisoned in India. That man asked me face to face for a bribe before he would take any action on my behalf.

Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of Parliament to take advantage of parliamentary privilege to accuse a Minister in the Government of a friendly Commonwealth country of a corrupt act when that Minister is not here to reply for himself? Is that not grossly improper and an abuse of the House, and is it in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I doubt whether it is out of order, but it is hardly consistent with the conventions of the House. I ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) to bear in mind that the 20th edition of "Erskine May," on page 431, states:
Opprobrious reflections must not be cast in debate on sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent Commonwealth territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty, or their representatives in this country.
I hope that the hon. Member will bear that reference in mind.

Mr. Dicks: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling, but I remind you that when I made the same claim in December 1986 during an Adjournment debate I was neither stopped nor corrected. I made the same allegation, because it is true. I was there; I know that it happened. Mr. Buta Singh then had the opportunity to take whatever action he wanted against me, but he did not do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) bleeds too much for the Indian Government. He should be more objective and take off his blinkers. He would then understand and appreciate the problems that the Sikhs face in India.
There is overwhelming evidence from many quarters that the Sikhs are being persecuted by the Indian Government in general and particularly at the hands of the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi. Only a few days ago his Minister of Commerce called at No. 10 Downing street. Among other things, I understand that he asked whether the policy that is about to be introduced to control the appearance on television of IRA terrorists could be extended to include members of the Sikh community living in Britain.

Given that background, there can be no justification whatsoever for the British Government's continued support of the Indian regime. If they are to continue to comment on human rights issues around the world, they have a duty loudly and clearly to condemn the abuse of human rights and the persecution of the Sikhs in India. A foreign policy based on selectivity, hypocrisy and double standards may be good for the Foreign Office, but it is not good for the British Government or the British people. It will be seen by many as yet another example of the Foreign Office putting its own interests before those of Britain.
It is not with any pleasure that I speak on this subject today. I do so because I believe that Sikh people in India are being persecuted by the Government there. The Sikh community in my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom are worried about relatives and friends in India. They can get no access to them, and their Members of Parliament cannot in most cases.
The fault lies at the feet of the British Government of 1947 who accepted the word of the Constituent Assembly that Sikhs would be protected in the new constitution. The moment that that constitution came into operation after independence, the Indian Government ignored their obligations regarding Sikhs and their autonomy in their own state of the Punjab and rewrote the constitution to protect the interests of the Hindu majority. That was an appalling thing to do, but the British Government sat back and made no protest.
It is surprising that I have to raise this important matter on the Adjournment because the British Government—of the party to which I belong—have flatly refused to answer my questions fully and frankly. They have flatly refused to condemn the Indian Government, although they condemn the South African Government. The Government have also refused to bring the issue before the House and the British people. The Government meet and greet members of the Indian Government all over the place. They recognise the so-called status of Rajiv Gandhi as an international politician of repute—a man who goes with a begging bowl looking for aid wherever he can get it, but who has given the Sandinista regime $10·4 million of aid. How can a country which demands aid from us afford to give aid to an evil Left-wing regime in Central America? We must have answers to these questions.
The Indian security services operate within the Indian community in Britain, but the Government are doing nothing about it. The Sikhs in Britain need their families and friends in India to be protected. They need Government support in their effort to get justice in the Punjab. They are not all terrorists, if, indeed, any of them are. Most are decent, hard-working people who love this country. Indeed, they love the British Government— the Tory Government, in particular—and have a high regard for our Prime Minister. Why are their views not heard? Why do the Government not respond to them? Why do we continue to bend the knee to this evil Government in India?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Waldegrave): My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has spoken in his characteristically robust way and I have listened to him with attention. The Foreign Office has a broad back. It can even put up with the criticisms of Mr.


David Hart in The Times—that great commentator on international affairs—but I was a little struck with my hon. Friend's accusation of hypocrisy. I know that my hon Friend takes a robust view about, for example, terrorism in other forms, and quite rightly. He is robust about terrorism in Northern Ireland. I believe that he is robust in his belief that the Iraqi Government have a legitimate interest in putting down a minority rebellion among Kurdish resistance fighters or terrorists—it depends which side of the argument one takes—in northern Iraq.
The perspective with which one approaches these issues is crucial. My hon. Friend rightly said that our relationship with India is old and close and that there is a burden of history on it. It is reinforced by many contacts, the greatest of which is the presence in the United Kingdom of 800,000 people of Indian origin who have made their home here. Among them, the Sikhs are the largest group and total more than 300,000. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that they have made a valued contribution to many areas of our national life. They are hard-working, loyal and excellent people. I have some in my constituency and share my hon. Friend's view. I share their concern about the terrible and tragic events that are taking place in the Punjab.
We should, however, remember one fact. Sikhs have played a distinguished part in the life of independent India and have continued to be represented, I believe, out of all proportion to their number, among India's leading politicians, public servants, soldiers and business men. As my hon. Friend said, the vast majority of Indian Sikhs are law-abiding citizens. But a small minority, which had never commanded a majority of democratic votes in the Sikhs' home state of the Punjab, has sought to obtain by violence what it clearly could not hope to secure by a democratic campaign—the dismemberment of the state of India.
The Sikh population represents about 60 per cent. of the population in the Punjab and is scattered elsewhere thoughout India. As my hon. Friend said, the Punjab is the richest state in India, thanks to the energy of its— mainly Sikh—farmers, the extensive irrigation works undertaken originally under British administration and the "green revolution" achieved more recently.
So it is not true to say—and my hon. Friend did not say it in his speech, but it has been said—that Sikhs in general are underprivileged or second-class citizens. However there are those in the Sikh community who have become very concerned that the processes of modernisation have damaged the traditional Sikh way of life. They have expressed concern—which may be legitimate—over access to water and other farming resources. There is also the grievance about the promise made in the 1960s to give the Punjab exclusive control of Chandigarh— the new city built when Punjab was divided in 1966. For all I know —and my hon. Friend is far more learned than I am in these matters—they may be legitimate grievances, but I know that he will want to join me in urging that they must be pursued by legitimate democratic means.
The main Sikh political party—Akali Dal—has long pursued some of those concerns with legitimate campaigning. That is fair enough, but my hon. Friend recognises that there is a minority who have taken the other line and have pursued the route of violence. Indeed, the casualties have been very great. I am advised that Sikh extremists have killed more than 2,400 people so far this year and more are dying every day. There have been

indiscriminate bomb attacks and a wide variety of the terrorist techniques with which I fear we are all too familiar in the modern world. There have been further attacks in recent weeks. Bombs killed 21 people on 1 November, and another bomb attack on 4 November left 27 dead.
The Indian Government have tried to respond to those activities. And I am sure that my hon. Friend, faced with the much smaller scale of terrorism in Northern Ireland does not doubt that the British Government are right to pursue vigorous means to supress that terrorism.
Clearly, the allegations to which my hon. Friend has referred, which have come from Amnesty International and from representatives of some of the Sikh community, must be properly investigated. I challenge what my hon. Friend said. Whenever we believe and have evidence that human rights are at risk, the British Government say so, but we must try to judge in our relationships with other countries which other countries have a system of law. In its most recent report, Amnesty International refers to the fact that there are legal remedies in India, although they may be slow—as they may be slow in Britain and in other countries where the rule of law is in place—there have been cases where allegations have been properly investigated and action taken against the perpetrators. That must colour our judgment of the situation. There is democratic Government and the rule of law in India, so the situation there is quite different from that in many countries in the world where neither exists.
The activities of the terrorists are not confined to India. In October 1985 a plot was uncovered to assassinate Prime Minister Gandhi during his visit to the United Kingdom. A moderate Sikh leader, Tarsem Singh Tor, was murdered in January 1986; another, Darshan Das Vasdev, was shot dead in November 1987; and three other attempts were made or plotted on the lives of leading Sikh moderates. In all those cases, those responsible have been tried and convicted or charges have been brought. It is intolerable that people living in this country and enjoying the liberties of British citizenship should abuse those liberties to promote a violent and anti-democratic threat to India.
Faced by the fact that we share a terrorist threat against our people, we have been closely in touch with the Indian Government during the past few days to find ways of strengthening our co-operation to combat the activities of extremists within the framework of our laws. We continue actively to look for ways of working still more closely together. That co-operation is something to which the Indian Government understandably attach great importance, and it has assumed a central place in the political relations between the two countries.
But legal or administrative measures are not what will, in the end, defeat extremism in India or anywhere else. What is necessary is that the extremists should be shunned by society at large and should no longer be able to call on the tolerance or passive acquiescence of people who do not share their extremist beliefs. I agree with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of Sikhs in Britain are moderate, decent people.
The extremists number perhaps a few hundred at most, but organisations are active in the Sikh community whose main purpose is to offer help and support to the extremists in India. Those organisations seem to be able to draw on the moral and financial support of many Sikhs in Britain who do not share that objective. I call on all decent Sikhs in Britain to ensure, before they give their support to an


organisation, that they are clear about its intention. We have had to fight a similar campaign for many years among decent Americans of Irish extraction, who have often fallen into the same trap in relation to the provisional IRA. Unless they are perfectly certain that the organisation in question has no truck with violence, they should have nothing to do with it, and those who give even the most passive support to extremism must bear some share of the condemnation for the misery of the Punjab and the suffering which that conflict has brought to India as a whole.
I have already implied that it is perfectly possible that in a bitter terrorist war the servants of any Government of any country may from time to time abuse their authority. What matters is the action that that Government take to bring to book those who have broken the law. In response to earlier reports by Amnesty, the Government of India said that specific charges of alleged violence are thoroughly investigated, and where such charges have been proved exemplary action has been taken against the guilty.
India is a democratic and independent state. Its constitution formally prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or race. Its people are subject to the rule of law—a rule of law to which Britain contributed more than a little. Remedies are available within the Indian legal system, as Amnesty itself acknowledges. In its latest report, Amnesty says:
National and local bodies in India, including the Supreme Court and high courts in the various states, do important work to protect … fundamental rights.
Amnesty also recognises the important role played by civil liberties groups and by India's free press.

Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the case of my constituent, Mrs. Kuldip Kaur, who two years ago was imprisoned on no grounds for eight months, and was then released and told that she was completely innocent. I have written twice to and telephoned the Indian High Commission asking whether it will consider paying compensation to that lady, who has lost eight months of her life and is now suffering mentally, as is her family. Will he take up this case with the Indian Government, bearing in mind what he said about the Indian judicial system, to see whether the system will ensure that that lady is recompensed? She has a piece of paper from the Indian Government saying, "We have made a mistake; you are

completely innocent", but it took them eight months to reach that decision and she has lost eight months of her life.

Mr. Waldegrave: Off the cuff at the Dispatch Box, and without examining the case, I cannot say that I will take it up. I shall certainly consider the case and write to my hon. Friend about it. His representations have helped to produce justice in that case, which to some extent proves that my comments have some validity— that the normal open lobbying procedures with which we are familiar can have some effect.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to alleged violations of human rights in India. We make clear, in public and in private, our views on the need for all Governments to respect human rights.
I return briefly to the original question asked by my hon. Friend: what is the effect on Anglo-British relations of the situation of Sikhs in India?

Mr. Jessel: On that point about relations between Britain and India, is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House greatly cherish the historic ties of friendship between Britain and India—

Mr. Dicks: How does my hon. Friend know that?

Mr. Jessel: —and that this was shown on Wednesday when 45 Members of the House attended a function of the Indo-British parliamentary group at India house? That is the view of most hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is right over the top.

Mr. Dicks: They all had a free curry at the Indian Government's expense.

Mr. Waldegrave: Against the background of tragedy and terrorism, it behoves us all not to do anything to encourage the spilling over of those bitternesses in Britain. On the contrary, we should argue for moderation and for a democratic means of solving the problems which may have a legitimate basis but which must be solved through the ballot box if this House is to remain true to its tradition. Nothing that we say or do today should give the least encouragement or quarter to those who follow the route of violence.
I have listened with care and interest to what my hon. Friend said, and I urge him to work with us to bring this tragedy to an end.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.